168
Link to tweet for insane replies: https://xcancel.com/hasanthehun/status/2025372555507630495
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
168 points (96.2% liked)
Slop.
805 readers
554 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The DPRK's system is not particularly different to China's system. Both were inherited from the Soviet Union and have since been modified in different directions by those states.
The positions the Kims have held are an elected position and at any time that their congress sees fit to change that, they can. Why then does the DPRK continue to elect the Kims to that role? Cultural reasons, it's become an unchanging pillar that people consider to be an important point of stability for their state. They don't want to change that pillar because they don't want to introduce potential instability to their state at a time when literally the entire world has been sanctioning them thanks to the US.
This will sound strange from the american perspective, but I'm from the UK and very much understand what it's like to live in a culture where people support a royal family and don't want to get rid of it. I'm not saying that the Kims are a royal family but that the culture of support they have staying in that role for state stability and the historic link to their revolution is culturally comparable to the people who have supported the British monarchy because "it's always there" and "it's important" and "it keeps us stable".
Importantly, there is a mechanism for them to change this at any time the DPRK feels it wants to, they can simply elect someone else to that role. Realistically I do not think this is not going to happen until a softening of relations with the rest of the world. This isn't going to happen until the US completely falls from grace.
One thing that differentiates the DPRK's system from the soviet and Chinese systems of democracy is that in the DPRK, all major elections are direct, rather than direct at local and indirect at higher positions.
I would really like to read more about this, but uhhh gestures at western internet it feels like a minefield out there. You have any books or articles you recommend?
A great book on socialist democratic systems is Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. I haven't read it cover to cover, but the section on the DPRK is very useful!
Political system yes, economic system no. DPRK economy has little to no capitalist elements and remains very much like the USSR's - all a combination of state and cooperative/collective ownership.
It's important to recognize that the DPRK does have private capital, though largely limited to special economic zones like Rason. These allow foreign investment, largely from Russia and China.
Most of what I believe is from statements made by people who escaped North Korea, and they don't paint a nice picture of their own country. I understand that obviously those escaping will hold the worst views, but it just seems weird to me how everything they say should be fabrication.
Same with Chinese, I know someone who has left China because of political prosecution, so comparing North Korea to China doesn't make it better in my opinion.
Also reminder that this doesn't mean China is all bad either in my opinion, it just seems both are far from perfect.
Those come from people who are taking money from NIS (formerly known as the KCIA but they changed the name to make it less obvious it's an occupied state). Those people are contractually obliged to paint the picture that South Korea wants in exchange for that money.
Anyone that does not take that money is politically persecuted, prevented from leaving the country, and monitored constantly.
The very fact that you use the word "escaped" is itself nonsense. Tens of thousands of DPRK citizens work outside the DPRK. The border with China is also an open border with tonnes of people travelling over it every day trading black market goods back and forth. The picture of "escape" that is painted is a myth created by the heavily militarised southern border, it does not exist on the northern borders.
Putting aside the word "escape", have you considered listening to the statements of people who have left the country who did not take money from the NIS? You should watch this whole video but particularly the guy in the middle. https://youtu.be/3V4Hnl7J9H4?t=678
That is very vague. Persecution for what exactly? I do not oppose all forms of political persecution. I actually think you'll agree with me when I say that the half of americans current supporting reactionary politics will actually require political persecution in order to make it a better country. So what exactly was this person being persecuted for? And what exactly did this persecution manifest as? Details matter. If it's one of the HK riots lot, they got handled very lightly compared to what the west would've done to them.
Thanks
I think it's possible that you missed my edit. Maybe a federation delay on edits?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I don't listen to what most Cuban refugees have to say about Cuba, same applies here.