Real life "1984" style media editing

[Blobbenstein]

I read that Un's brother, who gambled a lot, is on the run from the North Koreans....not sure if that is true...If Un had abdicated his role, what would have become of him?

 

[Second Summer]

I think it was the gambler brother who was first in the inheritance line, but was deemed unsuitable, so Un was chosen instead? Democratically elected leaders have limited powers, but dictators have less such restricting factors. Of course, they too have limits. In Un's case, the uncle was one such restricting factor, supposedly. Now I guess he only needs to worry about the military and the party, which are the two main bases of power in NK. Or so I have read.

 

[yakherder]

I was going more by his expressions....but I suppose his general appearance as well....Kim Jong Un just seems like he inherited everything, including the whole way the country is run. I think that most leaders have much more limited power that people think. They are only one person after all, and not Superman either, so they have to kind of go along with things to a large extent.

No doubt. He may be the symbolic leader, but he still has to play the game according to the rules. If he breaks them, the elite could get him out of power just as fast and in the same violent manner as he did Jang Song Thaek. That's why he feels so threatened by such people, and why retribution must happen in the manner it does. I don't necessarily think he's a great guy that just happens to be in a situation that forces him to act like an evil *******, but even if he did suddenly see the light, so to speak, you'd probably see something along the lines of a power vacuum with the victor making an example out of him. I do not envy his position. I wouldn't take any world leader position, for that matter, if it was thrown in front of me on a silver platter. The drama inherent in trying to lead even a small group of people is enough for me, forget trying to deal with an entire country even in a good state, let alone a country in a screwed up situation like NK.

 

[yakherder]

I think it was the gambler brother who was first in the inheritance line, but was deemed unsuitable, so Un was chosen instead? Democratically elected leaders have limited powers, but dictators have less such restricting factors. Of course, they too have limits. In Un's case, the uncle was one such restricting factor, supposedly. Now I guess he only needs to worry about the military and the party, which are the two main bases of power in NK. Or so I have read.

Basically. Kim Jong-Nam was originally the heir and, though it's difficult to speculate on exactly what the reason he was originally deemed unsuitable might be, in the years since he's been somewhat outspoken on the need for reform. That could either be part of the reason he was kicked out of the line, or it could be that he had no desire for reform until he realized he wouldn't be an heir, and speaking out is his way of rebelling, possibly even in the hope that if the current government collapses he could take control. Not sure where he's actually living now, but he's spent a lot of time in China and probably doesn't go anywhere near North Korea.

 

[das_nut]

I was going more by his expressions....but I suppose his general appearance as well....Kim Jong Un just seems like he inherited everything, including the whole way the country is run. I think that most leaders have much more limited power that people think. They are only one person after all, and not Superman either, so they have to kind of go along with things to a large extent.

Kind of like Stalin or Pol Pot, right?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Kind of like Stalin or Pol Pot, right?

People like to demonize leaders. It makes it easy to assume that a leader has absolute power, they can therefore take absolute blame. Not sure about Stalin and Pol Pot...Stalin became very paranoid and killed a lot of the people in the power structure around him, that suggests that he felt that he didn't have absolute power.

I think there should be less focus on leaders and other individuals, and that power, in this world, is sort of emergent, and that no one person controls it all, even puppet masters......they all are fairly limited, and can only push the system in one direction a little bit.

 

[Mischief]

People like to demonize leaders. It makes it easy to assume that a leader has absolute power, they can therefore take absolute blame. Not sure about Stalin and Pol Pot...Stalin became very paranoid and killed a lot of the people in the power structure around him, that suggests that he felt that he didn't have absolute power.

I think there should be less focus on leaders and other individuals, and that power, in this world, is sort of emergent, and that no one person controls it all, even puppet masters......they all are fairly limited, and can only push the system in one direction a little bit.

That may be true in some instances, but is not at all true in others. There are many cases where the leaders absolutely create the situation. Stalin was one example, Hitler was another.

 

[FortyTwo]

Then to put it in terms that we should be able to agree on: Are you suggesting that people who commit evil acts will always look as though they have committed evil acts? If you don't like/agree with the descriptor "evil", then substitute "cruel" or "bad".

He just hasn't grown his spindly mustache yet. They all get them, don't ya know.

 

[Mischief]

People like to demonize leaders. It makes it easy to assume that a leader has absolute power, they can therefore take absolute blame. Not sure about Stalin and Pol Pot...Stalin became very paranoid and killed a lot of the people in the power structure around him, that suggests that he felt that he didn't have absolute power.

I think there should be less focus on leaders and other individuals, and that power, in this world, is sort of emergent, and that no one person controls it all, even puppet masters......they all are fairly limited, and can only push the system in one direction a little bit.

Obviously, in any regime, the leader has to rely on those around him to carry out his orders. I would posit that, the more absolute the power at the top, the more paranoid that leader is (and has to be) in order to maintain his power, since he does not rule with any kind of consensus.

I gather you are thinking/assuming that there is some kind of "power behind the throne" in North Korea as there was, for instance, in the case of the powerful bureaucracy of eunuchs during parts of the rule of China by various dynasties. I haven't heard of anything similar going on in North Korea. Are you basing this on anything concrete?

 

[Blobbenstein]

well, I just think people at the top in NK have to watch each other, and that they all influence each other, are all vulnerable to each other. Maybe some could band together and bring about a coup. There is always a danger of power shifts...