https://hexbear.net/post/244410 from this post which had good faith questions about some possible racism/homophobia in instances of reporting from the DPRK, all well and good. Then a few people in the comments thought to let their liberal demons out and accuse the DPRK of somehow being a monarchy. Pure ideology. No real Analysis.
The DPRK is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a democracy. Stop being a liberal idiot and read some actual theory before defaulting to your corporate media propaganda.
I thought this site was better, but perhaps this is an isolated incident.
Edit: now the same people seem to be saying that the DPRK is Anti-Communist
There has been (in practice, if not in law) a hereditary line of succession. That is something to be criticised. This probably does come from the way the party is structured/cult of personality around the Kim family. So far, it hasn’t resulted in any fuckhead failson getting power, but it does create some concerns for the future. They should move away from this model as quickly as possible.
As far as monarchy is concerned, I don’t know what would be needed to justify that claim. A societal belief in the inherent goodness of the Kim dynasty? A mandate from heaven to rule? I don’t think either of those are true.
But yeah, get rid of the (informal afaik) hereditary succession thing and all is gucci.
Sorry, but I like democracy, even though it has flaws like the fact that very popular people (such as the children of revolutionaries) will naturally have a higher chance of getting power than other, less publicly recognized, potentially more suitable candidates.
You can note that it's a problem without criticizing them for not being tyrannical enough. "Sorry, I know you want Kim Jong-un to be your leader, but the computer calculated that this lawyer would be 6.78% better at leading"
lawyer would never have this energy
:juche-rose: :juche-boi: :kim-drip-too-hard: :kim-salute: :kim-drip:
deleted by creator
Yeah, it's cool that with every generation the leader has less power and less titles. Sounds like those communist party members currently leading a country have got some things figured out and might not need the assistance of the white savior
Hopefully, your system of children of children of children of children of revolutionaries get to be the leader survives when one of these children turns out to be a complete fuckhead that does pogroms or wants to launch a nuke or decides “this socialism shit is wack, I want treats and Disneyland” and decides to dismantle the DPRK.
Hopefully, there’s enough balance of power left after generations of venerating one family that the other politically powerful people aren’t just licking this supreme leader’s ass, or aren’t corrupt themselves (and the ones pushing for the dismantling), and can shoot this supreme leader in the head without causing a civil revolution. Maybe then the system will end, without having to end the DPRK itself.
I mean, clearly there have never been any examples in the past of failsons getting into power and ruining everything. No, every member of a family is as good and successful and kind and intelligent as the last.
And there have never, ever, in the history of socialism, been any example of a workers state rotting and hollowing from within, and parasites and ghouls getting in positions of power to take advantage of that, in complete unity with foreign imperialist powers, and destroying the state in a violent coup. No, that has never happened and can never happen because once you establish a DoTP you can basically run that shit on autopilot.
It's literally whoever they vote on is the leader. It's just democracy.
Why would they vote in this hypothetical fuckhead? Why would they continue to reaffirm their faith in this hypothetical fuckhead rather than remove him from power? (they wouldn't)
You're doing that unexamined american media brainworms thing again. stop it.
I'm not very educated about the DPRK so anyone feel free to correct me if I'm dead wrong about this, but doesn't the Kim family's position as long time leaders of the country grant them an advantage in elections? We criticize bourgeois democracy because the power of existing political institutions makes it impossible for anyone to be elected that isn't aligned with the ruling class. Technically there's nothing stopping everyone from voting for a communist president, but instead people in capitalist countries keep voting for absolute shitheads. Having a democracy in theory doesn't matter much when it's controlled by institutional power in practice.
There are obviously massive differences between a western bourgeois democracy and the DPRK. But if Kim Jong-un suddenly became a capitalist wouldn't he still have a massive advantage over an electoral opponent through the power his family has wielded and the publicity they've received? I see a lot of people in this thread arguing that the Kim family is inarguably good because they were voted in. That certainly disproves the DPRK being a monarchy, but I think it's worth questioning how fair a democracy is that puts the same family in charge for the better part of a century.
Only if that family does something obviously wrong. I believe they're currently operating on the entirely sane principle, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Sure, the Kims have an advantage over any potential opposition, and that is, again, a flaw in the democratic process. But the only way to see whether the democratic process is actually working is to see what happens when a Kim tries to come to power and isn't fit for the job.
In the US, we've had 45 bad leaders in a row. In the DPRK, they've had 3 good ones in a row. I'd say they've earned the right not to be compared to the US so far.
That's a very good point. When I read your statement about the DPRK having had three good leaders in a row I instinctively disagreed, but on further reflection that instinct is 100% the western propaganda that's seeped into my brain. In hindsight, my original comment was basically assuming the Kims were poor leaders already and therefore wouldn't be in power in a truly democratic system. Thanks for helping me purge another brainworm.
Yeah well we’ll see.
deleted by creator
People generally "get to be" leader if they get voted for, yes.
But I agree, we should dismantle the system of people voting for figures they like and trust. Very bad and icky compared to the system of voting for people we cant trust and dont even like that much, and who work to advance the goals of western imperialism, because if we didn't vote for them that would be defeatism.
This is cultural rather than structural I think. There is no structural reason for this to occur unless corruption is higher than it was even in China at its peak, but if corruption were so high I don't think they'd still be so ideologically left anymore. So the only take that works is that it has become a cultural thing.
Ultimately the role the Kims have occupied is a voted on position. This fact is undeniable.