robinn2 [he/him]

You’re right, sorry

Omg you linked my carrd that’s awesome

The leader of the SAC (formerly NDC) is the “leader” of the country, voted on by the SPA, which is elected by the people (SAC leader is also in WPK leadership as the CPC in China). This bias is attributed to the extreme conditions the dprk is under and the trust people have in the family.

Kim Jong Un is General Secretary of the Workers Party of Korea, and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission. These positions are elected by the WPK Party Congress and by the Supreme People’s Assembly respectively.

If Kim Jong Un didn’t wish to continue to hold his positions, one of the Vice-Chairpersons would take his place temporarily, and a successor would be discussed and elected at the next party conference, also likely a Vice-Chairperson.

For example, Kim Jong Il was elected into the Party Central Committee in the 70’s, and in 1974 was elected as the successor to Kim Il Sung. Jang Song-Thaek was elected to succeed Kim Jong Il, however, he wanted to reform certain areas, thus debate regarding his intentions and whether he was a revisionist or not ensued; the party then switched and had Kim Jong Un succeed Kim Jong Il.

Jang Song-Thaek then staged a coup in an attempt to consolidate power by force (confirming his intentions were not pure and that he was likely a revisionist in the intent of his “reform”). He was executed thereafter.

It’s important to mention Jang Song-Thaek to show that a successor to Chairman of the SAC doesn’t have to be a direct child of the former.

So, if Kim Jong Un were to retire, or wish to discontinue his positions, it would be somebody in the Politburo, or a Vice-Chairperson of the State Affairs Commission, to succeed him. However, there currently isn’t an elected successor appointed, because likely odds are that he isn’t retiring or dying in the near future.

All of Kim Jong Un’s roles within the DPRK are: Supreme Commander of the KPA, Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the WPK, General Secretary of the WPK, Chairman of the SAC, and Supreme Representative [as entailed in WPK leadership]

Kim Jong Un is not actually in total control of the DPRK; the Supreme People’s Assembly has, by far, the extreme majority of control over the latter. Kim Jong Un has never been in either the Supreme People’s Assembly or its respective Standing Committee. Premier is the second top rank within the SPA, currently held by Kim Jae Ryong [not related]. President of the Standing Committee (Presidium) is the top position within the SPA, a position held by Kim Yong-Nam [not related] until April 2019, where Choe Ryong-Hae thereafter was elected. That isn’t to say that Kim Jong Un holds no power within the DPRK, but anyone within the SPA certainly has more legislative authority.

Each person within the SPA, including Premier and Head of the Presidium, is elected (and thus their power is temporary and can be removed at any time). The closest thing to a dictatorship (so to speak) in the DPRK is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a determining class dictatorship of the majority which governs the state.

The only of the Kim family members (remember this is a common Korean surname, I am referring to the lineage of Kim Il Sung) to have an SPA position was Kim Il Sung, and he abolished his position. The “next in line” leader in the WPK is likely not to be a descendant of Kim Il Sung either.

I agree, face the wall

First one is a guy who ran as a democrat for some local position and had these self-righteous rants where they said liberals need to be “realistic” (and therefore basically republicans, and anyone campaigning for change beyond basically mirroring republicans is “crazy”).

Second is from this vid. They’re both emotes that just mean ”liberal.”

In any event, the US didn’t need an excuse to join the war. Germany was giving us plenty already.

When the US declared war on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, it did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the US three days after the US declared war on Japan. The U.S. was the ideological predecessor to Nazism [1] [2], and only joined the war when they were threatened.

Uphold the Communist Party of China and Marxism-Leninism-MZT; Amerikkka inspired Nazism and will, like its child, die in a bunker with a gun to its head

Read up on colorism

They’re the type of socialism (social democracy) that I approve of.

Social democracy is not socialism, it is social-fascism, class collaboration leeching off the wealth of the global south like a settler vampire from the hill of the imperialism. Look at how social democratic settlers treat immigrants, or minorities/natives. You fundamentally do not understand what socialism is.

And no offense, but you have no fucking idea what the the PRC is doing. You know nothing about their government structure, how policy is carried out, or the way the system functions at all. I guarantee you could not name the tiers of government, or even three government officials without looking it up. Your ignorance is shown right away by the fact that you say “CCP” (Chinese Communist Party) when the correct acronym is “CPC” (Communist Party of China). This is such a simple mistake that proves you have not read any media outside of the west regarding China.

Ugh horrible argument. No, you have to contend with the source I provided, not skip it and provide a different source, especially when the prolewiki page is a challenge to the Wikipedia page, and so citing the latter is like citing a work against which a polemic is directed at the polemic as an “alternative.”

Apparently Wikipedia is “not biased”, they just forbid certain sources, include U.S. government aligned sources by and large (this article you’ve cited sources Radio Free Europe, a CIA propaganda outlet; the New York Times summaries of situations in countries the U.S. is opposed to (this is done 10x), despite the source being a rubber stamp for the U.S. government; a Washington Post opinion article which completely obfuscates the nature of the press as a tool of class rule), and so on. Sorry, Wikipedia is biased.

It is their fault. They lost an argument only to whine about me and others in another thread (after willfully ignoring my response to their points) and now they say they “don’t have a lot of time” (they had time to write 400 responses and link multiple resources they didn’t verify) when asked to read, that’s textbook bad faith cowardice. This person you’re responding to, JohnDclay, is the asshole lib from the 500 response thread.

I’m trying to talk in good faith, but I don’t have 10 hours to read about it. I’ve only researched about 1 or 2 hours. But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

Right, so you didn’t read my carrd and then linked a different source instead (super good faith) that I completely refuted (apparently you felt no need to respond to my complete rebuttal]. So you didn’t read the comment or the response to your rebuttal, and yet you’re saying you’re acting in good faith because you don’t have a lot of time/haven’t done a lot of research? Whatever, then don’t act like you’re qualified to have an opinion.

But I’m definitely not just taking your website at face value.

What does this even mean? “Face value”? It’s a collection of sources. Seriously, if you don’t have the knowledge to even respond to my points, much less my complete refutation of your own points, don’t ghost respond to me acting like I’ve said something crazy to get support in another thread. It’s cowardly and pathetic.

I’m just so fed up with folks online regarding, what i would call state capitalist countries as genuine socialism,

Read up on your Trotsky fool

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

I will have you shot

Xi Jinping was re-elected as GenSec in 2022 (third term), so the Central Committee would foreseeably be doing a new election in 2027 (for the SC of the Poliburo as well).

“Once”

I geuss I should have said shove a catus up your ass. [sic lmao] Because it might dislodge that fucking stick thats up there.

You’re the one that started the insults, I was merely replying to your point (something you still haven’t been able to grapple with).

The US isn’t a place that I would hold up as an example, for pretty much anything.

And yet the narrative you were repeating was derived from the U.S., which you would know if you engaged with my sources. Naturally you were incapable, and still are. And you will lash out again when I prove you wrong on these new points, unable to conjure a refutation, with your “points” being barely developed anyways. “What if I despise the U.S. and yet uncritically believe everything they say about AES” is not the “reasonable” position.

Like how long has Winnie the pooh been the chairman is so sensitive that he jails people for saying that? [this sentence is barely legible]

Another commenter said that Winnie the Pooh was banned in China, which I proved completely wrong (naturally I was blocked). Your claim is a little more unique. Should I explain how this “meme” is racist? Naturally this is not required, as it has become explicit to the point of Xi Jinping’s skin being covered with a yellow filter on the profile image of a comm on an instance you are federated with (sh.itjust.works/c/meanwhileongrad). Hilarious (oh and consult this for “the meme originated in China” argument). Whatever, Luo Daiqing is the only example I could find online, of which he assumed the identity of someone else to post these comparisons, and thus was liable to slander (we don’t even get the specifics of his “criticism”, but this is the implication based on sensationalist stories).

Let’s talk about how Beijing has lied to Hong-Kong…

This is the most specific criticism you can muster? With regards to what? Do you mean one country, two systems? Hong Kong remains capitalist, but the mainland was forced to crack down on protests that included burning an unarmed civilian alive and killing an elderly street cleaner with a brick, all for the noble cause of letting a man murder his pregant wife in Taiwan and flee to Hong Kong without facing charges; and the U.S. government (4th PSYOP group) already admitted to “pulling the strings” behind the protests in a propaganda video. I dare you to address this.

Or about how they don’t own Taiwan…

[response to this] (you will be incapable of replying as per, because you don’t actually know anything about this subject)

Get it through your skull that just because they wave the red flag, doesn’t mean they are good.

Great strawman, but you know I never made this point, so I don’t know who you think will fall for this.

Under the guise of “neither Washington nor Beijing”, you repeat the propaganda of the former, and although confident, have no ability to actually prove your points. You are the donkey, led by a carrot just out of view, letting your nose guide you and while walking in the direction it is pointed confidently asserting that you have no need for carrots; you forge your “own path”, which coincidentally has already been trotted out for you, but by touching the blades and tossed dirt to each side assure yourself that you have found “the truth.”

You’re a dumbass western chauvinist who calls anything propaganda, regardless of claims being proven, because anything outside of your ideology regarding “regimes” cannot be accepted. Rather than proving anything I said wrong, you resorted to childish and bigoted insults, as encompassed in the term “tankie”, and in your homophobia, which you justified as being a different variety of queer yourself, and admitting to merely holding water for bigotry under the notion that “this insults people, and so must be used”, showing your ignorance not only in Chinese matters but also in your own arguments. You are the one carrying water for the U.S. (a murderous regime far surpassing China) through these narratives that are mainly propagated by them (as shown in the multitude of sources I linked) but under the guise of objectivity and opposition to extremes. You have one line which you can repeat as if it has some rhetorical power, when really it makes you seem pathetic.

Thought-terminating nonsense. It’s a homophobic insult regardless of your sexual orientation. Either way, you couldn’t refute my sources so it doesn’t really matter that you’re resorting to insults. Very clear coping mechanism.