To what extent can dictatorship of the proletariat be said to truly exist in the DPRK, both in terms of politic rule and image?
Disclaimer and context on the kinds of bias I likely have: I (unfortunately) probably have a strong bias towards liberalism, capitalism and democracy as a result of being raised around these ideologies and values. I'm at least partially aware of the fact that these have been partially ingrained into me, and am doing my absolute best to acknowledge and work around this. I am also very, very deeply ignorant and have not read any socialist or communist theory. I apologize for my ignorance and bias ahead of time, and hope that I have done an adequate job of handling it within this post.
I've grown very interested in learning about socialist theory, and in reading through some of the posts here as my first real attempt at tackling my bias, saw something that confused me: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was said to be a socialist country. I'm aware that there's already a post talking about that (maybe there are many), but what I'm curious about has a somewhat smaller scope:
Q: To what extent can dictatorship of the proletariat be said to truly exist in the DPRK, both in terms of politic rule and image?
Before explaining my thoughts and confusion, I'd like to make it clear that I'm aware that the DPRK has been both involved in war and undoubtedly meddled with severely by imperialist or capitalist countries, to say the least, meaning it can't possible be in the best position. I'm not trying to discredit socialism or communism, and I ask my question out of genuine interest, not to discredit the DPRK necessarily.
And so, here are my points of confusion and concern, briefly notated. I'll elaborate on them after this summary of them:
- My first point of confusion is the extent to which the way in which the role of the President of State Affairs is appointed can be said to be indicative of a dictatorship of the proletariat, with particular focus on the seemingly hereditary passing on of power, and a possible lack of representation of the proletariat within the DPRK as a result of both this aspect and what I might call political oppression.
- My second point of confusion is the extent to which the structure of the DPRK is one of a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than dictatorship of a small elite group, with particular focus on the way in which the structure makes corruption practically impossible to get rid of once present. I have no doubt that corruption is something commonly discussed within the context of socialism, and so I want to specify that I'm not talking about whether or not corruption is somehow inevitable in socialist/communist structures, but rather about the way in which hypothetical corruption within the DPRK would have total power, should it exist, with focus put onto this as a result of the rest of these points of concern & confusion.
- My third point of confusion is the extent to which it can be said that the cultural and iconographic depictions of the President of State Affairs resemble a dictatorship of one person rather than a proletariat of the working class.
- My last point of confusion is the extent to which it can be seen in the internal actions of the DPRK that the well-being of the proletariat is prioritized.
That was the summary. I'll try to elaborate on what I mean with these points in more detail, now.
As stated, my first point of concern is the process of selection for the President of State Affairs. In examining the extent to which the proletariat has total dictatorship, we can examine both to what extent the proletariat comes into positions of power, and how much power these positions have. In examining the role of President of State Affairs, we see a passing-down of power from father to son for the entirety of the existence of the DPRK. While I don't expect a democracy or parliamentary voting from a socialist republic, I am confused as to how a position can be said to represent the interests of the proletariat, when the key defining feature and "requirement" for the position seems much so to be something hereditary rather than belonging to the proletariat. I additionally doubt the extent to which it can be said that the President of State Affairs is part of the proletariat as the result of the abysmal living conditions in which much of the population of the DPRK lives -- Wait, please wait; I'm not trying to assign blame to socialism or communism through critique of conditions of life in the DPRK, nor even to assign blame to the DPRK's regime -- rather, I want to additionally point out that the President of State Affairs enjoys (relative) luxury unthinkable to the proletariat of the DPRK. That's all. So in summary, this is concern about the extent to which the position represents the proletariat, and the extent to which the position is one of the proletariat.
The second point is one of to what extent this position can stay as one belonging to the proletariat. Now, I'm not very informed as to how the inner mechanisms of the DPRK's political system works. However, I do have Wikipedia, and I'm betting on those articles not being complete lies -- I get that they might be heavily influenced by liberalism or capitalism, but I am assuming that they would not entirely fabricate the roles and powers of these roles.
To quote the site forbidden in all schools known as Wikipedia: "The president chairs the State Affairs Commission (SAC), which is the highest leadership institution in North Korea, and serves as the commander-in-chief of the North Korean armed forces."
This guarantees the Supreme Leader the absolute most power, and while I lack the knowledge of the finer details of the inner mechanisms of the DPRK, obviously the DPRK is a dictatorship of some sort if it is to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and I bring this up purely to point out the fact that should the Supreme Leader not work in the interest of the proletariat, or not belong to the proletariat, the DPRK would not be a socialist country under the assumption that such a dictatorship of the proletariat be necessary to be called as much. The political framework is there for one entity, one person, to have massive influence over all sectors of the republic.
Now, the third point is honestly the most surprisingly interesting one to me. Now, I've obviously never been to North Korea, however, everything that I have seen from North Korea, as well as the specific language chosen by the DPRK both internally and in their own propoganda, seems to indicate a level of almost worship for the lineage of the Supreme Leader, which is the lineage that seems to have enjoyed dictatorial rule over the country. The iconography does indeed incorporate socialist elements, but I question to what extent one can fairly argue that this iconography and culture is socialist, when the praise goes not towards the people but one person, even if that person is glorified as a representation of the people. There's a lot that can be critiqued about this statement of mine here, not least the fact that the propoganda that I would have seen from the DPRK would be that which capitalist-liberal countries and corporations "allowed" me to see through their regulation of social media algorithms, as well as the fact that the capitalist-liberal(????) governments I have lived under obviously have influence on what has been taught to me. Regardless, I have also seen such iconography and language from even people who at least claim to be anarchists and / or communists/socialists.
The last point is perhaps the absolute weakest: It's that the conditions of North Korea are awful. I don't know if I should even expand on this much, as what I know of this is based largely on online retellings from those who have managed to escape the DPRK (and seem universally thankful to have done so), and are basically all both anecdotal, and not adequately specific to the modern DPRK as a result of living conditions in the DPRK being surely worse now than they would have been if there had never been any war between the DPRK and other countries. However, this sub seems to know a lot, and so I'll leave this point generally open, if that is allowed -- My general feeling is that life in the DPRK should surely be far better than the absolute poverty faced there. How badly does this mean I was propagandized? :)
Ah, though there is a small point of this that ties back into the first that I can critique -- political oppression. It would make sense to ensure that the structure of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not suffer, but what I hear of in the news and read in pretty much every single organization is that political prisons are the norm in the DPRK, and that disagreeing with / going against the actions of the Supreme Leader will end with harsh consequences. This could only be justifiable if the Supreme Leader were a perfect representation -- or at least a suitable representation -- of the proletariat and their wishes, but as explained in this very lengthy post, I doubt this.
So that's my thinking. I understand that this might be very annoying to read, as I am a very ignorant person who hasn't even read any political theory yet. However, I definitely would never spend an entire day learning about the DPRK in order to have the knowledge of its system to properly ask this question -- I figure it's best to ask when I don't know something, rather than when I already am intimately familiar with the subject. I hope I'm not mistaken.
Additionally, I've been motivated to ask this because I absolutely adore the history teacher I once had, who was a self-proclaimed anarchist, and had a stunning amount of both knowledge and nuance. I believe he used the term dictatorship when referring to the DPRK, and so too does pretty much the entire internet, from what I've seen -- To waive it all off as propaganda seems to be such a large statement and claim that it itself would make me suspicious. Eh -- I don't know how to tactfully ask this, but as a newcomer, could I be forgiven just once for asking whether you, whoever is writing a comment, believe that some of the responses portraying the DPRK as a truly socialist country where the proletariat is faithfully represented and honored, could be propaganda? This veers on the edge of breaking rule A5, maybe Q3/A3. I don't mean to break these rules and don't think I do so just yet -- I'm just so confused and paranoid now because I've spent the past hour writing this post, then re-writing it and re-writing it again due to over-thinking what influences exist where, and so I also just wanted to ask whether this subreddit is a generally good place for me to get real responses from non-state affiliated socialists/communists/anarchists. I'm sorry for the annoyance.
Thank you to whoever read this, I am thankful for any comment at all. I apologize again for my ignorance and hope that my bias was adequately removed or at least acknowledged in this post.