1. There's this KCNA article which has awful homophobic comments

  2. This KCNA article which compares Obama to a "black monkey"

  • This article** does analysis which states that the monkey comparison was merely referring to being a "trickster" which ignores:
  1. This KCNA article which is the worst of them all. The racist comparisons are unmistakable in my opinion.

**The aforementioned analysis article has what I find to be pretty unconvincing excuses for the homophobic comments, the quote, "a disgusting old lecher" is not properly addressed.

I'm willing to hear any possible explanations. I don't know what's going on.

      • aaro [they/them, she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        If ability to lead has nothing to do with blood lineage, then why have 3 out of 3 north Korean leaders been of the same blood lineage? This is kind of a thing that we have to critical of if we want to claim "critical support", if we can't criticize Supreme Leadership being handed down from father to son, what do we criticize? Uncritical support is almost never cool.

      • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        That's what you call it when the law says that the members of one family are the only ones who can be in charge of a country, yes.

          • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            How about the party rules, which govern the actual selection process? Or when you call the governing institution's rules just 'party rules' does that make them magically not governing law?

              • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                I mean, the 10 Rules say that the revolution will be lead by Kim Il Sung's family. What more do you need?

                '''The great revolutionary accomplishments pioneered by the Great Leader Comrade KIM Il Sung must be succeeded and perfected by hereditary succession until the end. The firm establishment of the sole leadership system is the crucial assurance for the preservation and development of the Great leader's revolutionary accomplishments, while achieving the final victory of the revolution. '''

                  • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    It is. I've been trying to chase down any actual laws on succession, and it appears that the hereditary status of head of state is informally accomplished through the position of Suryong (and lets be clear that the great man theory of Suryong is fucked up as hell and not communist in the slightest, regardless of how heredity itself is related to it) determining inheritance, but even that is not made legally apparent. Not that one can swing a stick at English sources without finding either western academics or NGOs saying what law contains without quoting the law. Japanese sources are, predictably, worse.

                      • KollontaiWasRight [she/her,they/them]
                        ·
                        2 years ago

                        I'm trying to tease apart primary and secondary sources, which is a total pain in the ass and makes doing any useful research next to impossible. What I can see is a problem inherent to all regimes of a tension between law and practice, wherein the ways in which the law behaves seem to tail the law itself. That said, because everything in English comes from dogshit sources, I can't tell what's real and what's shit. And my dive into Japanese sources was worse and gave me a headache.

            • robinn [none/use name]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Kim Il Sung was the President of the Republic, a position which no longer exists. Power has been diffused at every step. The President of the Standing Committee of the SPA is the highest democratic power and is not held by a relative of Kim Jong Un. The President of the SAC is the highest diplomatic position and is held my KJU but he doesn't have unilateral power over the SAC.

              "It's a monarchy because a family was elected by the people to a leadership role for three generations as a result of US massacres and sanctions that caused untold misery which the family gained credibility by guiding the people through". That's your argument, and it's awful. And then when someone points out that this sort of :reddit-logo: nonsense is why they left the website you get incredibly rude and snarky. How long did it take you to think of the "you first" reply? Jesus christ please just stop talking. You're acting like a child.