This is like a westoid sharing a YouTube video or something and expecting you to take it seriously. I cannot confirm or deny anything in that with earnest. It doesnt matter how much the .ml brigade satisfies your updoot and downdoot ratio. The DPRK is not open to free journalism and this singular tankie.tube video is not evidence of that. I'll go watch this film on a separate platform before I make my judgments on it.

Edit: So far all I am seeing is SK and NK are both extremely controlling. She lost her SK citizenship filming this. Also, while the people of NK so far in this film seem happy. They are cut off from the net, like Lemmy and seem to not have the same amount of choice. So far my viewpoint that all states are bad is just reinforced here.

Edit 2: the social cohesion seems to be a nice way of saying there is a tight control of the flow of information into the country, restricting its people's from developing differing viewpoints and opinions. Not entirely a good look. But its not like the capitalists to the south are better.

It's a documentary, though, and not the only one. That's like saying a Marvel movie is a "piratebay video," the platform is just how I am getting it to you. I also don't know what you mean by the ".ml brigade," we are on Lemmy.ml, and people here are agreeing with me more than you. It's not a coordinated thing.

The DPRK has public news outlets, and there's reporting from the outside. It doesn't have private news outlets, yes, but independent orgs do visit.

This only happens on ml comms so you can say what you want but ya'll are king dogpilers.

rsf.org/en/country/north-korea

It really doesn't appear to be open

Leftist opinions are pretty common on Lemmy.ml, Hexbear, Lemmygrad, and other instances. I guess if you are on a .world account it might seem different. I see leftists dogpiled in Lemmy.world threads too, I chalk that up to instances being different ideologically, not any particular tendency towards "dogpiling."

Secondly, it isn't black and white. Reporting is thoroughly vetted. I never said it was "open," just that accurate reporting exists internally and externally, and independent orgs do visit and report on them. They are extremely careful overall.

I like anarchists, I get along with a good amount of them. I used to be one, in fact. I disagree with them, some of them moreso than others, but that doesn't mean I don't like them. I'm not bending over backwards for anything, nor am I trying to say the DPRK is some magic utopia. I am saying that information is limited, but absolutely does exist. You're just affirming it to be some dystopian nightmare out of a cartoon, rather than a real country with real people.

I gave you a documentary, and you said you didn't trust it because I gave you a pirated version. You have to realize that that's silly, right? Multiple sources from multiple languages affirm that the DPRK is not the hellscape you think it is, especially if you read Korean, Mandarin, Russian, or Spanish. If you only want English, the Korean ex-pat anti-imperialist group Nodutdol released a good toolkit on learning more about Korea, both the DPRK and ROK, and more, so you can see more about what the situation actually is like.

Korea Education Toolkit | US Out of Korea!

Nodutdol’s US out of Korea campaign seeks to educate the public about US military aggression in Korea, which is pushing the peninsula towards a renewed state of war.

^{www.usoutofkorea.org}

I definitely edited that comment and said I would find the film. You ignoring my additions is not something I can do anything about. I mentioned how SK was fucked. I watched the documentary, that still did not prove that independent journalism is allowed mor that they allow the free press in. Which if you recall, was my original statement before you made it about your points. Its not silly. One person is not independent journalism being let into the country. Its simply allowing one vetted person to make a film approved by you.

All other sources I can locate say information on the inner workings of the DPRK are unreliable as they only allow the singular state source to report. Literally everything says that but you and your singular documentary. Is everything else wrong? Its hard to say but I doubt it.

The situation looks exactly as it is. The people are fine, they are just massively restricted in what information they are allowed to consume. I never said it was a hellscape, you put those words in my mouth. I said they do not allow the free press in, and if they wanted to dispell rumours and portray truth they would allow the free press in. But they don't, because they want to control what information their civilians consume. Thats what I am saying. I am not saying they are starving and demons run amuck. I am saying the citizens have extremely restricted access to information from outside their country and that is how you achieve this "social cohesion". Please, I implore you to not project onto me and actually read my words. You never seem to do that because you are so eager to show how your perspective is the right one, when it is merely just another flawed perspective like line because we both dont live there.

I've given you far more than just one documentary, though. It's like you ignored everything from Nodutdol, and are again insistent on the idea that if they vet press then they don't let "the free press" in. I have no idea what "the free press" is. You never define it. It's true that news from Russia, China, Cuba, and occasionally more come to visit. KCNA is fairly accurate as well, and there are other news agencies than just KCNA.

They do restrict internet access, yes. They do rely on their own intranet, and few have access to the internet. I never disputed that.

The reason I'm confident in what I'm saying is because I've done a good deal more reading than just random internet searches. I know my knowledge has limits, and I know what I can't know for sure. Your point seems to be that because you aren't as confident, that I cannot be either, on the basis of your short internet searches.

I'm saying that defectors may leave not because they believe the system itself is bad, but because of certain economic crisis inflicted from the outside. Further, some defectors leave for the ROK and find life worse than they expected, or are in some cases are kidnapped by the ROK after being lured into overseas programs. There are well-documented cases of this, which is why my comment has lots of sources, so if you want more then please see it.

Nodutdol, an anti-imperialist group of Korean expats, released a toolkit on better understanding the situation in Korea. This is more like homework, though.

Korea Education Toolkit | US Out of Korea!

Nodutdol’s US out of Korea campaign seeks to educate the public about US military aggression in Korea, which is pushing the peninsula towards a renewed state of war.

^{www.usoutofkorea.org}

I appreciate that you defended the nationalistic part, but I don't appreciate that you glossed over the patriarchal part, but I digress.

Nationalism is just a crutch to bring support to the ruling class of any country. Saying that it is good if the ruling class is good or even just has good intentions is... Not good? I shouldn't have to explain how that kind of fervor can be coopted. Nationalism doesn't just disappear when it's no longer needed.

But, personally, as a US citizen, I don't think anyone I know thinks of North Korea as a hellscape. Media rarely portrays them as one, although it comes up more in Korean media, which does have some proliferation here. In the news, it's just about the weapon capabilities, and the military parades, the former I don't really care about as much coming from a country with an arsenal capable of destroying the world many times over and occasionally little hesitancy to do so, and the latter I very much do. Same with Cuba. If anything, American media tries to convince us of all African and sometimes South American countries are hellscapes. Mostly, we just get told Cuba has old cars and is poor and stuff about Fidel Castro, and North Korea is also poor and very militaristic and nationalistic. But, like, that seems pretty accurate from your replies?

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so my analysis of nationalism fits that. I'm a fan of Frantz Fanon's work, especially The Wretched of the Earth. Nationalism in the global south must be correctly analyzed, and that involves class analysis, which you brought up. In a standard, colonized or imperialized country, the nationalist capitalists can ally with the working class against comprador capitalists and the imperialist countries. This has been the case in Algeria, Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and more. Once free from the comoradors, next comes overthrowing the nationalist bourgeoisie.

The DPRK, however, performed land reform, effectively ending landlords as a class, and now has relegated the bourgeoisie to special economic zones like Rason, where trade with Russia and China is more common. The ruling class has been the working class. The DPRK has a strong sense of internationalism, it was one of the primary forces in liberating African countries from colonialism alongside Cuba. The "Non-Aligned Movement" was an internationalist and global-south focused coalition, of which the DPRK was a major player.

In its current context, the strong millitancy is a matter of survival against brutal sanctions and constant invasion threats from the US Empire. They are forced to be on-guard at all times, because the invasion drills practiced in the ROK might at any point become real. It's a matter of survival.

As for depicting the DPRK as a hellscape, there are people that think smartphones don't exist there, or that they are all eating rats and have to have the same haircut, etc. etc. They are poor, but they do well with what they have. Ending sanctions would probably see them thrive. Same with Cuba, which is portrayed as a totalitarian nightmare.

None of these countries are perfect utopias, but at the same time no utopia exists, and every country in the global south deserves to be treated with dignity.

Read The Wretched of the Earth (Frantz Fanon, 1963) on ProleWiki

^ProleWiki

I think there is a big difference between eating rats and having the same haircut in terms of propaganda angles. Like, I could believe the second one because a strong national identity tied to looking a certain way feels very in line with traditionally militaristic and patriarchal countries, but trying to tie that to eating rats is moat and baileying. Anyone that believes the eating rats is a small minority and would be given skeptical looks, especially without proof.

But seeing you do that at the same time you tie North Korea to Cuba feels like that's the point? You see why I am skeptical of your premise. You keep pointing at eating rats and imperialism like it shields you from the other issues you don't address.

In my experience, the people who believe the rat stories are the most common. Further, the haircut story is also false, propagandizing against the DPRK takes on many forms.

I addressed everything you said. The DPRK is poor, yes. It's also heavily sanctioned, but despite that the economy is growing and it's getting better. The DPRK is nationalistic, yes, but that isn't a bad thing, and it's extremely internationalist in foreign policy. It is millitaristic, yes, by necessity for its position as a nation under constant threat.

The DPRK isn't a perfect country, nor is it a paradise. It also isn't the saturday morning cartoon villian like the media portrays it to be, as constantly threatening to nuke everyone or enforce the same haircuts. That's my point.

How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there's not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn't even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It's not rocket surgery.

This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn't true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they're not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn't particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I've seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn't that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn't even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!

The idea of state-mandated haircuts is false. I never said people only have different haircuts.

I think you're getting lost in the sauce here, a bit. I've given common examples of widely spread stories, such as people eating rats or being forced to get one of only a few types of haircuts, etc. There are other stories too, like the idea that whoever stops clapping for Kim Jong-Un first is executed. People do believe these stories, even though we know they're fake, because of cultural hegemony.

I am not saying these are all the "same thing." They have differences in severity, yes, but they are all real examples of real news stories that have been debunked. Recently, there was even a story of banning hamburgers and hot dogs for being too American, which, wouldn't you know, was also fake.

Real information from the DPRK is neither impossible to find nor what's out in the open. It does exist, but it's primarily not in English, and English-speaking news is flooded with tall-tales and clickbait to overwhelm the real information.

I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say, here. I've made my position clear several times now.

I don't have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries

Fair. I was just unsure whether you really did mean all countries.

Some places are better, some are worse.

And some places are better for some people, while being worse for other people. Not necessarily always, but sometimes it's a matter of preferences. One person may choose to live in a country with fewer liberties due to preferable climate. For them that would be a good choice, but for you it may not be.

But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags.

Personally I didn't get that impression.

Cowbee: "Haha! What executions? All of it is completely made up and originates from things like satire! Things are wonderful in North Korea and anyone thinking otherwise has just been deceived."

Also Cowbee: "Look, this execution was actually not a problem because of many reasons. Besides, DPRK was just going through a rough time, and the guy probably deserved it or something. Anyways, stop trying to judge a country based on its past actions!"