u/kissyoursister - originally from r/GenZhou
I’m currently reading Patriots, Traitors & Empires and I’m really enjoying it so far. I learned absolutely nothing about Kim Il Sung and Korea’s history in school, so I have to learn about it all on my own time now in college (I don’t take any history classes).

From what I’ve read thus far, it’s very obvious that Kim Il Sung and all his merits led him to the position that he was in and that he earned his place as the founder and leader of the DPRK. My only concern, and I guess confusion, is why his son took over following his death. I don’t want to flat-out call the DPRK a monarchy because I’m not that educated on how they operate, but I’m sure you can all understand how someone in the West would see it as a monarchy through Western media and how the country is portrayed.

I guess my question is that is there any reason Marxist-Leninists should support the DPRK’s leadership from Kim Jong Il to now Kim Jong Un? Aside from being descendants of the DPRK’s founder, do they really have any qualifications? Kim Il Sung was a guerrilla leader and dedicated his life to liberating Korea, so why did the passing of command not work like a meritocracy wherein the most qualified person would take Kim Il Sung’s place once he died?

Is this “monarchy”, as it is viewed by most Westerners, widely popular in the DPRK? By that I mean do the DPRK’s proletariat accept this chain of leadership that they will be guided by the descendants of Kim Il Sung? I feel like if the answer is “yes” in any way, it would be hard to buy into that idea because Western media portrays their population as brainwashed and subjugated under a feudal monarchy. I, however, am more than willing to accept that it’s simply a different culture and their conditions are vastly different than other countries, especially the West.

I’m sure someone is going to tell me to watch Hakim’s video on why the DPRK is so weird but I’ve already seen it and it didn’t answer my question or clear up my confusion. It seems like the DPRK is the most lied about country of nearly all-time, and the difference in culture and structure between my country (America) and theirs is so vast that I want to learn more.

    • archive_botOPB
      0·
      3 years ago

      u/kissyoursister - originally from r/GenZhou
      I’ve seen that comment before on DPRK elections, but my question was more about the positions that followed Kim Il Sung. I’ve heard about how once he died, the position was dissolved so he’s the “Eternal Leader” and the same happened with his son died, so he was “eternal” as well. Another commenter made it seem like a council of some sort elected Kim Jong Il to lead after his father died, is that true? Did the same happen for Kim Jong Un? I get the general idea of how elections work in the DPRK but from my understanding the proletariat have no say in the highest position which Kim Jong Un currently holds, right?

      • archive_botOPB
        0·
        3 years ago

        u/newcomradthrowaway - originally from r/GenZhou
        Yeah I dunno enough. But the usual comments that people in AES support their leaders, and leadership is supported by millions of people. AES presidents don’t exist in a vacuum with absolute power. So I’d err on the side of yes, the Kims have support from people and it’s not nepotism.

        • archive_botOPB
          1·
          3 years ago

          u/kissyoursister - originally from r/GenZhou
          I’ll try to find more sources, and maybe the end of this book will even touch on how Jong Il and Jong Un came to power (haven’t finished it yet) but it is rather difficult to explain that 3 generations of leaders isn’t a monarchy when it kinda looks like it, but I’m going into the subject with as open-minded as possible

          • archive_botOPB
            0·
            3 years ago

            u/newcomradthrowaway - originally from r/GenZhou
            I think it’s easy to spin as monarchy or nepotism at the surface level.

            Look at Stalin, he wanted to step down but nobody wanted him to and he kept getting voted in so he kept being the general secretary. The West spun that as him being an authoritarian leader.

            I know the USSR isn’t the DPRK, but it’s an example of how easy it is to twist narratives