I said there are elections. People go vote for their representatives. Whether that electoral process is effective, or those representatives truly representative of their constituents is a different question which we lack good information on. This isn’t hard to grasp
Again, thought terminating cliche. why do you believe that to be the case? Have you read its constitution? Engaged in good faith with Conflicting defector accounts? Looked at past electoral data? Or Studied the country’s history to conclude why North Korean politics has taken the shape that it has?
Or, have you simply swallowed an orientalized view of a country on the other side of the world, without really questioning it?
Let’s address the elephant in the room here. You and I probably agree that the cult of personality around the Kim family in the DPRK is not conducive to a healthy political culture,and I would consider it a failure within the DPRK’s political project. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.
Why is there a cult of personality to begin with? If we look at charts of electoral results immediately preceding and following the Korean War, we see North Korea go from an incredibly vibrant, multi party, Socialist Republic, to a system where the Workers Party heavily dominates the legislative process. So this centralization in North Korean politics has a clear material origin.
But did you know that, in contrast to this centralization, the Kims have all held different positions in government? Did you know that those positions, on paper at least, get progressively more diffuse and less centralized as time has gone on?
Those facts alone don’t tell us everything about the DPRK’s politics. But it does lead us to consider why these two concurrent trends, the cult of personality and the diffusal of power, have are happening. Perhaps it points to factional divisions.
What I’m getting at is not that China, or the DPRK, or any other country on earth for that matter, is not some secret, perfect, democratic utopia. But that these places have political cultures and institutions that arise from history, and we can analyze them to see how and why they work (or sometimes don’t work). And that making sweeping generalizations based on aesthetic vibes isn’t helpful. We have to strive to actually understand the world if we want to meaningfully discuss it
Its not a sweeping generalization. Look i appreciate you actually putting some genuine well meaning into this reply. I really do. But calling something democratic, when it clearly isn’t doesn’t help anything except to push the narrative. I can call my fridge an oven , I can even show you were it gets hot. It doesn’t make my fridge an oven. With that being said, again, I appreciate this reply, but let’s be honest, this isn’t going anywhere. I wish you a good evening
You do realize that in the face of actual, materialist analysis, simply saying “it’s clearly xyz” does not in fact cut it? Think about this for a moment: do you blame Cuba for its poverty, or the US Empire’s embargo? Do you believe everything mainstream news sources say about Cuba, or do you place a heavy deal of skepticism? The DPRK and Cuba are both quite similar situationally, with the former opting for heavy millitarization as deterrence and the latter opting for sending doctors as international aid. Both are socialist, both are under heavy embargoes, both have achieved quite a lot considering their circumatances. Both have strong ties with each other, and support liberation movements in Africa, Palestine, and more.
A lot of what you think you know about the DPRK is just wrong. The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there, at least in the English language (much can be read in Korean, Mandarin, Russian, and even Spanish). Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in… unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:
Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman who lived in the DPRK, argues that defectors are inherently biased. He says that 70 percent of defectors in South Korea are unemployed, and selling sensationalist stories is a way for them to make a living.
Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of DPRK defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews DPRK defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you’re curious. I also recommend My Brothers and Sisters in the North, a documentary made by a journalist from the Republic of Korea that was stripped of her citizenship for making this documentary humanizing the people in the DPRK.
In fact, the report is a propaganda piece likely geared at shoring up the rule of Kim Jong Eun, North Korea’s young and relatively new leader, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of Korean studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Most likely, North Koreans don’t take the report literally, Lee told LiveScience.
“It’s more symbolic,” Lee said, adding, “My take is North Koreans don’t believe all of that, but they bring certain symbolic value to celebrating your own identify, maybe even notions of cultural exceptionalism and superiority. It boosts morale.”
Sadly, some people end up using outlandish media stories as an “acceptable outlet” for racism. By accepting uncritically narratives about “barbaric Koreans” pushing trains, eating rats, etc, it serves as a “get out of jail free” card for racists to freely agree with narratives devoid of real evidence.
It’s important to recognize that a large part of why the DPRK appears to be insular is because of UN-imposed sanctions, helmed by the US Empire. It is difficult to get accurate information on the DPRK, but not impossible; Russia, China, and Cuba all have frequent interactions and student exchanges, trade such as in the Rason special economic zone, etc, and there are videos released onto the broader internet from this.
Finally, it’s more unlikely than ever that the DPRK will collapse. The economy was estimated by the Bank of Korea (an ROK bank) to have grown by 3.7% in 2024, thanks to increased trade with Russia. The harshest period for the DPRK, the Arduous March, was in the 90s, and the government did not collapse then. That was the era of mass statvation thanks to the dissolution of the USSR and horrible weather disaster that made the already difficult agricultural climate of northern Korea even worse. Nowadays food is far more stable and the economy is growing, collapse is highly unlikely.
What I think is more likely is that these trends will continue. As the US Empire’s influence wanes, the DPRK will increase trade and interaction with the world, increasing accurate information and helping grow their economy, perhaps even enabling some form of reunification with the ROK. The US Empire leaving the peninsula is the number 1 most important task for reunification, so this is increasingly likely as the US Empire becomes untenable.
You know the worst part of all this is. You seem to think I hate the people of Korea, or that I’m against the workers. It’s really quite sad. You assume I’m on the side of the USA when it comes to the treatment of Cuba or NK or something? Like Jesus fucking christ I hate the USA, I hate them for what they have done on a global scale. They keep interfering negatively around the world. The neat part? That doesn’t excuse other countries from being shitty to. You use the above to blame the us, and rightly so, but when there is criticism of another country doing bad its always “oh well the US does/did that!” No shit I’m not on their side either. You need to look at things objectively. Did I say NK is a shit hole and it’s entirely of their own doing? No. Should that vet who wants to be buried in NK, be buried in NK, yes. Fuck borders. You play into the us vs them and it’s not beneficial for humanity, the only us vs them is us vs the ruling class.
The problem here is that all of your evidence thus far is “it’s clearly xyz.” Everyone here is fully aware that two things can be true at once, that one country being bad doesn’t mean others cannot be, etc. etc. My point here is that the DPRK is the single most propagandized against country on the planet, and that it takes an extraordinary level of effort for the average English speaker to get an accurate idea of what it’s like, sifting through all of the bullshit. That’s why I left you with some resourced you could check out.
“It’s clearly xyz” is not a point, and continuing to present only that as evidence supporting your claims does wonders for legitimizing those of us who can actually bring sources. From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
The DPRK’s electoral democracy relates primarily to the people’s assemblies, along with local state organs, assemblies, and committees. Every eligible citizen may stand for election, so much so that independent candidates are regularly elected to the people’s assemblies and may even be elected to be the speaker or chair. The history of the DPRK has many such examples. I think here of Ryu Mi Yong (1921–2016), who moved from south to north in 1986 so as to take up her role as chair of the Chondoist Chongu Party (The Party of the Young Friends of the Heavenly Way, formed in 1946). She was elected to the Supreme People’s Assembly and became a member of the Standing Committee (then called the Presidium). Other examples include Gang Ryang Uk, a Presbyterian minister who was a leader of the Korean Christian Federation (a Protestant organisation) and served as vice president of the DPRK from 1972 until his death in 1982, as well as Kim Chang Jun, who was an ordained Methodist minister and became vice-chair of the Supreme People’s Assembly (Ryu 2006, 673). Both Gang and Kim were buried at the Patriots’ Cemetery.
How do elections to all of the various bodies of governance work? Elections are universal and use secret ballots, and are—notably—direct. To my knowledge, the DPRK is the only socialist country that has implemented direct elections at all levels. Neither the Soviet Union (in its time) nor China have embraced a complete system of direct elections, preferring—and here I speak of China—to have direct elections at the lower levels of the people’s congresses, and indirect elections to the higher levels.
As for candidates, it may initially seem as though the DPRK follows the Soviet Union’s approach in having a single candidate for each elected position. This is indeed the case for the final process of voting, but there is also a distinct difference: candidates are selected through a robust process in the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. As mentioned earlier, the struggle against Japanese imperialism and liberation of the whole peninsula drew together many organisations, and it is these that came to form the later Democratic Front. The Front was formed on 25 July, 1949 (Kim Il Sung 1949), and today includes the three political parties, and a range of mass organisations from the unions, youth, women, children, agricultural workers, journalism, literature and arts, and Koreans in Japan (Chongryon). Notably, it also includes representation from the Korean Christian Federation (Protestant), Korean Catholic Federation, and the Korean Buddhist Federation. All of these mass organisations make up the Democratic Front, and it is this organisation that proposes candidates. In many respects, this is where the multi-candidate dimension of elections comes to the fore. Here candidates are nominated for consideration from all of the mass organisations represented. Their suitability and merit for the potential nomination is debated and discussed at many mass meetings, and only then is the final candidate nominated for elections to the SPA. Now we can see why candidates from the Chondoist movement, as well as from the Christian churches, have been and can be elected to the SPA and indeed the local assemblies.
To sum up the electoral process, we may see it in terms of a dialectical both-and: multi-candidate elections take place in the Democratic Front, which engages in extensive consideration of suitable candidates; single candidate elections take place for the people’s assemblies. It goes without saying that in a non-antagonistic system of class and group interaction, the criterion for election is merit and political suitability
As for the bodies of governance, there is a similar continuity and discontinuity compared with other socialist countries. Unlike the Soviet Union, there is a unicameral Supreme People’s Assembly, which is the highest authority in terms of laws, regulations, the constitution, and all leadership roles. The SPA is also responsible for the national economic plan, the country’s budget, and foreign policy directions (Han 2016, 47–48). At the same time, the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland has an analogous function to a second organ of governance. This is a uniquely Korean approach to the question of a second organ of governance. While not an organ of governance as such, it plays a direct role in electoral democracy (see above), as well as the all-important manifestation of consultative democracy (see below). A further reason for this unique role of the Democratic Front may be adduced: while the Soviet Union and China see the second body or organ as representative of all minority nationalities and relevant groups, the absence of minority nationalities in a much smaller Korea means that such a form of representation is not needed.
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy. I am not playing into “us vs. them” in general, I specifically take the side of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, of the indigenous against the colonizer.
There are so many sources. Look at wiki. When a family runs a country you can clearly see. If there was some ambiguity on who is running the country you would have a point. But that’s not the case it’s run by the family, what do you call a country that is run by a Familial dynasty where the guy is known as the “Supreme leader”?
You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.
If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.
Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?
But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.
You unironically are saying there are legit elections in NK. Oh boy, you are a hoot
I said there are elections. People go vote for their representatives. Whether that electoral process is effective, or those representatives truly representative of their constituents is a different question which we lack good information on. This isn’t hard to grasp
What isn’t hard to grasp is that NK isn’t democratic, and sham elections dont count
Again, thought terminating cliche. why do you believe that to be the case? Have you read its constitution? Engaged in good faith with Conflicting defector accounts? Looked at past electoral data? Or Studied the country’s history to conclude why North Korean politics has taken the shape that it has?
Or, have you simply swallowed an orientalized view of a country on the other side of the world, without really questioning it?
Let’s address the elephant in the room here. You and I probably agree that the cult of personality around the Kim family in the DPRK is not conducive to a healthy political culture,and I would consider it a failure within the DPRK’s political project. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.
Why is there a cult of personality to begin with? If we look at charts of electoral results immediately preceding and following the Korean War, we see North Korea go from an incredibly vibrant, multi party, Socialist Republic, to a system where the Workers Party heavily dominates the legislative process. So this centralization in North Korean politics has a clear material origin.
But did you know that, in contrast to this centralization, the Kims have all held different positions in government? Did you know that those positions, on paper at least, get progressively more diffuse and less centralized as time has gone on?
Those facts alone don’t tell us everything about the DPRK’s politics. But it does lead us to consider why these two concurrent trends, the cult of personality and the diffusal of power, have are happening. Perhaps it points to factional divisions.
What I’m getting at is not that China, or the DPRK, or any other country on earth for that matter, is not some secret, perfect, democratic utopia. But that these places have political cultures and institutions that arise from history, and we can analyze them to see how and why they work (or sometimes don’t work). And that making sweeping generalizations based on aesthetic vibes isn’t helpful. We have to strive to actually understand the world if we want to meaningfully discuss it
Its not a sweeping generalization. Look i appreciate you actually putting some genuine well meaning into this reply. I really do. But calling something democratic, when it clearly isn’t doesn’t help anything except to push the narrative. I can call my fridge an oven , I can even show you were it gets hot. It doesn’t make my fridge an oven. With that being said, again, I appreciate this reply, but let’s be honest, this isn’t going anywhere. I wish you a good evening
You do realize that in the face of actual, materialist analysis, simply saying “it’s clearly xyz” does not in fact cut it? Think about this for a moment: do you blame Cuba for its poverty, or the US Empire’s embargo? Do you believe everything mainstream news sources say about Cuba, or do you place a heavy deal of skepticism? The DPRK and Cuba are both quite similar situationally, with the former opting for heavy millitarization as deterrence and the latter opting for sending doctors as international aid. Both are socialist, both are under heavy embargoes, both have achieved quite a lot considering their circumatances. Both have strong ties with each other, and support liberation movements in Africa, Palestine, and more.
A lot of what you think you know about the DPRK is just wrong. The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there, at least in the English language (much can be read in Korean, Mandarin, Russian, and even Spanish). Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in… unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:
Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of DPRK defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews DPRK defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you’re curious. I also recommend My Brothers and Sisters in the North, a documentary made by a journalist from the Republic of Korea that was stripped of her citizenship for making this documentary humanizing the people in the DPRK.
Because of these issues, there is a long history of what we consider legitimate news sources of reporting and then walking back stories. Even the famous “120 dogs” execution ended up to have been a fabrication originating in a Chinese satirical column, reported entirely seriously and later walked back by some news outlets. The famous “unicorn lair” story ended up being a misunderstanding:
These aren’t tabloids, these are mainstream news sources. NBC News reported the 120 dogs story. Same with USA Today. The frequently reported concept of “state-mandated haircut styles”, as an example, also ended up being bogus sensationalism. People have made entire videos going over this long-running sensationalist misinformation, why it exists, and debunking some of the more absurd articles. As for Radio Free Asia, it is US-government founded and funded. There is good reason to be skeptical of reports sourced entirely from RFA about geopolitical enemies of the US Empire.
Sadly, some people end up using outlandish media stories as an “acceptable outlet” for racism. By accepting uncritically narratives about “barbaric Koreans” pushing trains, eating rats, etc, it serves as a “get out of jail free” card for racists to freely agree with narratives devoid of real evidence.
It’s important to recognize that a large part of why the DPRK appears to be insular is because of UN-imposed sanctions, helmed by the US Empire. It is difficult to get accurate information on the DPRK, but not impossible; Russia, China, and Cuba all have frequent interactions and student exchanges, trade such as in the Rason special economic zone, etc, and there are videos released onto the broader internet from this.
In fact, many citizens who flee the DPRK actually seek to return, and are denied by the ROK. Even BBC is reporting on a high-profile case where a 95 year old veteran wishes to be buried in his homeland, sparking protests by pro-reunification activists in the ROK to help him go home in his final years.
Finally, it’s more unlikely than ever that the DPRK will collapse. The economy was estimated by the Bank of Korea (an ROK bank) to have grown by 3.7% in 2024, thanks to increased trade with Russia. The harshest period for the DPRK, the Arduous March, was in the 90s, and the government did not collapse then. That was the era of mass statvation thanks to the dissolution of the USSR and horrible weather disaster that made the already difficult agricultural climate of northern Korea even worse. Nowadays food is far more stable and the economy is growing, collapse is highly unlikely.
What I think is more likely is that these trends will continue. As the US Empire’s influence wanes, the DPRK will increase trade and interaction with the world, increasing accurate information and helping grow their economy, perhaps even enabling some form of reunification with the ROK. The US Empire leaving the peninsula is the number 1 most important task for reunification, so this is increasingly likely as the US Empire becomes untenable.
Nodutdol, an anti-imperialist group of Korean expats, released a toolkit on better understanding the situation in Korea. This is more like homework, though. I also recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance for learning about the DPRK’s democratic structure.
You know the worst part of all this is. You seem to think I hate the people of Korea, or that I’m against the workers. It’s really quite sad. You assume I’m on the side of the USA when it comes to the treatment of Cuba or NK or something? Like Jesus fucking christ I hate the USA, I hate them for what they have done on a global scale. They keep interfering negatively around the world. The neat part? That doesn’t excuse other countries from being shitty to. You use the above to blame the us, and rightly so, but when there is criticism of another country doing bad its always “oh well the US does/did that!” No shit I’m not on their side either. You need to look at things objectively. Did I say NK is a shit hole and it’s entirely of their own doing? No. Should that vet who wants to be buried in NK, be buried in NK, yes. Fuck borders. You play into the us vs them and it’s not beneficial for humanity, the only us vs them is us vs the ruling class.
The problem here is that all of your evidence thus far is “it’s clearly xyz.” Everyone here is fully aware that two things can be true at once, that one country being bad doesn’t mean others cannot be, etc. etc. My point here is that the DPRK is the single most propagandized against country on the planet, and that it takes an extraordinary level of effort for the average English speaker to get an accurate idea of what it’s like, sifting through all of the bullshit. That’s why I left you with some resourced you could check out.
“It’s clearly xyz” is not a point, and continuing to present only that as evidence supporting your claims does wonders for legitimizing those of us who can actually bring sources. From Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
I highly recommend the book, it helps shed light on some often misunderstood mechanisms in socialist democracy. I am not playing into “us vs. them” in general, I specifically take the side of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, of the indigenous against the colonizer.
There are so many sources. Look at wiki. When a family runs a country you can clearly see. If there was some ambiguity on who is running the country you would have a point. But that’s not the case it’s run by the family, what do you call a country that is run by a Familial dynasty where the guy is known as the “Supreme leader”?
So close to having an actual thought
You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.
If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.
Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
Look i know how these countries operate. Saying they do “x” doesn’t mean it to be true. Its not hard to understand
You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?
It was that they are democratic. I’m not baiting them, this stupid thing has been going on for so long lol
But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.