Memes

You should study North Korean politics and political structures.

The standard you are using, which is that there should be constant changes in leadership, is an attempt to use your existing liberal democracy as the only possible model for liberatory politics.

Think about it. Is the ONLY way you would ever accept a political system when it has constant leadership churn? Ok, grant that. Then ask, what causes constant leadership churn?

The answers will be either constant fighting between major ideologically opposed factions OR constant disapproval by the people being governed.

Neither of those conditions are good healthy conditions.

Now instead imagine if there were no competing ideologies, the capitalists have been purged and domestically the entire population has a shares collective trauma from the massive bombing campaign by the psychopathic US.

What's the behavior gonna be? Well, if any leader is capable of leading them out of the caves and to safety from napalm, kidnapping, fire bombing, and famine - that leader is either very lucky and when their luck runs out they will be ousted, or that leader is actually very effective, responsive to the needs of the people, and is capable of adapting to changing times. In that case, the people will have absolutely no desire to put another leader in place.

When that happens, especially in a culture that puts huge importance on multi-generational families, the children of that leader are likely going to be the best equipped to carry in the program. Not necessarily though. They would have to remain constantly engaged, constantly proving that they are capable.

What would that require? It would require a system where by existing leadership cabinets were capable of selecting and assigning those descendants to specific posts. And guess what... That's exactly what DPRK has.

Your insistence that freedom is defined exclusively by multi-party systems that give "equal" voice to capitalist and working class interests is a form of chauvinism.

Re-commenting what @freagle@lemmygrad.ml commented so you can see it since .world seems to love censoring non-liberal instances

You should study North Korean politics and political structures.

The standard you are using, which is that there should be constant changes in leadership, is an attempt to use your existing liberal democracy as the only possible model for liberatory politics.

Think about it. Is the ONLY way you would ever accept a political system when it has constant leadership churn? Ok, grant that. Then ask, what causes constant leadership churn?

The answers will be either constant fighting between major ideologically opposed factions OR constant disapproval by the people being governed.

Neither of those conditions are good healthy conditions.

Now instead imagine if there were no competing ideologies, the capitalists have been purged and domestically the entire population has a shares collective trauma from the massive bombing campaign by the psychopathic US.

What’s the behavior gonna be? Well, if any leader is capable of leading them out of the caves and to safety from napalm, kidnapping, fire bombing, and famine - that leader is either very lucky and when their luck runs out they will be ousted, or that leader is actually very effective, responsive to the needs of the people, and is capable of adapting to changing times. In that case, the people will have absolutely no desire to put another leader in place.

When that happens, especially in a culture that puts huge importance on multi-generational families, the children of that leader are likely going to be the best equipped to carry in the program. Not necessarily though. They would have to remain constantly engaged, constantly proving that they are capable.

What would that require? It would require a system where by existing leadership cabinets were capable of selecting and assigning those descendants to specific posts. And guess what… That’s exactly what DPRK has.

Your insistence that freedom is defined exclusively by multi-party systems that give “equal” voice to capitalist and working class interests is a form of chauvinism.