The aspect I am criticizing is the power set-up doesn't strike me as of-the-people and for-the-people. Politically it *seems* elitist and aimed at concentrating power in the hands of the few. This I am questioning both it's motivations and its consequences (aims and methods).

Market reforms is something else. You could argue that a totally command economy is really the most productive system and for the best. Thus I wouldn't question your motivations (aims). So while I would not agree that this would be for the best, I would not necessarily question the motivations. I might think that your aims were noble but that you were ignorant of certain economic principles (but I would say that - I believe a a free-market) - would question your methods.

But let's not get side-tracked by methods here. Let's agree to disagree on the merits of a command economy.

Putin you argue that this type of power transition is necessary because of external pressures: existential threats. I have to admit I don't really understand this argument.
I can see how it protects the interests of a few people who wield power - the inner circle. But how does it keep North Korea safe?

I just googled North Korea reforms. I see now that some China style reforms were planned before Kim Jong-Il's death. Sounds promising.

I'll also admit to some hypocrisy here, IF power remaining in the family makes reform more likely then I withdraw my objection.

"I can see how it protects the interests of a few people who wield power - the inner circle. But how does it keep North Korea safe?"

Messy transition processes in the middle of a crisis completely undermines the ability of a government to handle a crisis. What would be better, a smooth transition in which there is a sense of continuity with the past or continual internal intrigue and jockeying for position? Consider the fact that Kim Il Sung died in the middle of the worst natural disasters in DPRK history, with its entire food production annihilated by flood. Many a government has collapsed in the face of crisis due to undue emphasis on electioneering and government transitions. For example, I am studying Somalia quite a lot. The parliamentary government collapsed in 1969 after a messy election. It seemed the elites were only concerned with elections and various factions jockeying for position, and not concerned with Somalia's economic problems. The people of Somalia overwhelmingly supported the coup which followed.

Then there's the very real fact that bourgeois-style elections, in which counterrevolutionary parties are openly allowed to compete, almost always result in coup attempts and foreign meddling. Look at all the CIA-led Color Revolutions. Look at the coups waged against progressive leftwing governments the world over, especially in Latin America, also Indonesia in which between 500,000-1,000,000 members of the CPI were slaughtered by the US & Australian backed Suharto regime. You can't act as if "political liberalization" incurs no risks to the regime itself, a regime which the US & South Korea actively have sought to destroy for 60 years and in South Korea's case, they lock up anybody who is openly sympathetic with socialism. But nobody is saying they should become more democratic, are they? You yourself said it'd be good if the southern militarists would take over the north, and thereby implement their National Security Law over the whole country with nary a word of protest from the anti-communists.

To me, whenever people preach about democracy and human rights, it almost inevitably involves the locking up or killing leftists and the allowance of counterrevolutionary terrorism and insurrection.

The point is, conditions matter when you're lecturing others about their so-called lack of democracy. You can't constantly threaten a country and then except it to be a liberal democratic utopia. It's going to defend itself.

*expect

LOL, just saw a press release in which Australian PM Kevin Rudd praised Suharto for being a force of modernization and social development, and expressed his condolences when he died in 2008.

Funny, nobody mocked him for it. Nobody pointed out that the KPI was physically exterminated. Because to capitalist, slaughtering communists = respect for human rights and democracy. Indeed, Australia's Prime Minister at the time of the Suharto genocide could not contain his glee:

"“With 500,000 to 1 million communist sympathisers knocked off … I think it is safe to assume a reorientation has taken place.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/in-praise-of-a-dictator/2008/01/19/1200620275283.html?page=fullpage

The Australian political elite can really go to hell when it comes to bitching about the DPRK. The hypocrisy is boundless.

Australians have always had mixed feelings about that regime. Public opinion (including the mass media) has always been anti many of Indonesia's repressive activities, while governments have always been more "diplomatic".

The fact that there is mixed feelings and your political leaders have fawned over him and showered him praise (not just diplomatic-speak) demonstrates the utter moral bankruptcy of the criticism of the DPRK.

Utter moral bankruptcy is a bit strong. Pragmatic yes, Hypocritical yes. But what politician or world leader not hypocritical? Was Stalin ever hypocritical? Or pragmatic?
What about Kim Jung-Il? Do you really consider these leaders to be morally superior?

Here is what Kevin Rudd said at Suharto's funeral.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/28/indonesia.marktran
The Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, called Suharto an "influential leader" who presided over Indonesia during a period of significant economic growth.

"The former president was also a controversial figure in respect of human rights and East Timor, and many have disagreed with his approach," Rudd said.

Indonesia is huge country right next to Australia. Most of our trade ships must pass through Indonesian waters. We're a small population with a large land area not well defended. We have to be diplomatic - really. So Rudd chose his words carefully. I don't think that is morally bankrupt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/8977024/Kim-Jong-Un-named-supreme-commander-of-North-Korea.html

Just in case there was still confusion as to whether Kim Jong-fat was actually succeeding his father.

Where was the "diplomacy" when it came to Australia's campaign of demonization vs Sukarno? This isn't about diplomacy, Suharto enriched Australian corporations and they loved him for it.

My god, China is still under sanctions for a protest in 1989, but Rudd calls Suharto's crimes of genocide and mass murder "controversial". What a joke.

"Kim Jong-fat"

Nice racist/anti-fat jibe there, hoss. Did your frat brothers help you think up that one?

"What about Kim Jung-Il? Do you really consider these leaders to be morally superior?"

To your political leaders who celebrated the mass murder of one million communists and helped Suharto exterminate the Timorese? Yes.

I agree
kim jung-sick would be more clever

Anyway on the matter of Kim Jong Un, I'll believe he's in charge when he's made head of the NDC.

http://nkleadershipwatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ndc_dec11.jpg

Kim Jong the Unready

And speaking of Frats, I think the North Korean government should really consult the NFL's program on diversity in hiring.

I don't feel bad about calling him fat when the people he rules are starving. Get your priorities in order.

http://www.northkoreanow.org/hunger-politics/

Putin I don't want to rile you up too much. You're entitled to your opinions, I think I think you know far more than I, and I while I often disagree with much of what you say (not all), your posts do make make me think. But when you say that Rudd is morally bankrupt and Stalin wasn't I have to wonder what you mean by morally bankrupt.

Let's talk about the concept of a morally bankrupt leader. What does this actually mean? We need to agree on some sort of definition here...

For some Bill Clinton's sexual activities made him morally bankrupt. Personally I could care less about his sexual activities. Thus when I consider Clinton's moral worth, his infidelity does not factor. I mention this to illustrate that people have different ideas of morality. And we have different moral priorities. Thus if are to discuss the moral merits of other leaders such as Stalin and Rudd, I think you and I need to delineate some common ground.

Righty or wrongly, I view Stalin as a morally bankrupt leader. By that I mean utterly untroubled by conscience. He may well have been an effective leader. He may even be a great leader, but I don't think he was a moral leader. I think he is about as Machievellian as you can get. I agree that Rudds carefully worded "praise" for Suharto does indicate a certain degree of moral flexibility. I have no doubt that Rudd is aware of Suharto's appalling activities: nepotism, corruption,ruthlessness etc. So when he uttered those words, he knew he was being a hypocrite. Rudd certainly would never have behaved the way Suharto did and would never have wanted to, yet he excused Suharto. It this does not mean that Rudd is utterly untroubled by conscience.

But let's look at Stalin, he was so devoted to his cause that he thought nothing of having close associates murdered (the purges) and the slightest of suspicion of their loyalty (true or false), he was responsible for the death of millions of people in his own country (the Ukrainians for example. True or false), he let nothing stand in his way for total power (he was as ruthless as Al Capone. True or false). Maybe it was all worth it? But this does not change the fact that *he did not let morality get in his way*. Thus he was morally bankrupt.

Alternatively everything I have ever read about Stalin is all lies. Propaganda?
Do we at least agree on a definition of morally bankrupt? I'll name a leader I think we can definitely both agree upon. Hitler. Untroubled by conscience (or at least how normal people conceive conscience).

"I don't feel bad about calling him fat when the people he rules are starving. Get your priorities in order."

I already destroyed this lie. Try again. Thanks for the link to an organization that has ties to South Korean revanchist organizations. Good work.

What is it with you and denying famines in communist countries? Next you'll say Ethiopia was a veritable breadbasket in the mid 1980s.

I don't know what on earth Stalin has to do with Australia's enthusiastic praise and support for Suharto which has occurred regardless of party for decades, while continually moralizing about human rights. I think it has something to do with English speaking people's propensity to wield a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. It's this attitude which I find morally bankrupt.

Stalin's associates were put on trial and found guilty for terrorism, treason, and assassination, among other things. They are no more 'murdered' than anyone who is found guilty of such things.

I've had the famine debate a half a dozen times at least. I'm not rehashing that again. Every famine that occurs in an "enemy" state is automatically attributed to the leadership, while the dozens of famines which occurred as a result of the actions or control of western countries are ignored because liberal democrats wear the white hats in your narrative, and communists wear the black hats.

Stalin never had "absolute control". The Soviet government was always been a government by committee, and if Stalin was in absolute control there would never have been the kind of oppositionism and debate that occurred throughout his rule. Nor would he have ever proposed the 1936 Constitution.

Stalin did more to liberate the western world from fascism than any other single leader. But abuse is non-stop because if Stalin is abused, nobody will pay any attention to the crimes of the West and their craven collaboration with fascism, and their not-so- secret wish that fascism had prevailed.

"I don't know what on earth Stalin has to do with Australia's enthusiastic praise and support for Suharto"

I asked you whether you considered Stalin and Kim Jing-Il to be morally superior to Rudd. You said yes. I am trying to figure what you mean by morally bankrupt.

I shoudn't have mentioned the Ukraine. I know you have written about it a lot. I just meant to illustrate that Stalin was as Machievellian leader you can get. Regardless of the details, I wanted to see if you agreed that Stalin was as unconcerned by conscience in the pursuit of his ends as Al Capone was in his (or Genghis Khan or Ivan the Terrible etc).

But I see that you do not accept this view of Stalin. For examole, you say that the purges were fair trials. If you are right I hope someday that this view achieves more mainstream acceptance. If there were some history professors who were respected by their peers, who were not communists (thus proving that they were not biased) who would also make this case I might be more open minded about it. But your view seems to me to be as much of a fringe view as holocaust denial. But I'll admit, that I have not personally examined all the evidence. I accept the mainstream view of Stalin for the same reason I accept the mainstream view of Climate Change - that it is the mainstream view. But as I say if you are right... the truth is the whatever it is.

Stalin never gleefully cheered on mass murder, like your prime minister did in the 1960s. In fact he gave explicit orders to treat the Germans humanely, even though he had little reason to. So yes in this very specific sense he is more moral and humane than the liberal democrats who have ruled Australia.

Well yes, of course you'll equate it with Holocaust denial. You need a Soviet Holocaust so you can discredit the entire system. Without a Soviet Holocaust and the demon Stalin people will have to wonder why they have to put up with your amoral system in which the rich are billionaires while millions starve on a daily basis instead of a system of full employment and class equality, and won't be able to stomach the continual prattling on about how your system is supposedly good for the millions starving.

"Stalin never gleefully cheered on mass murder, like your prime minister did in the 1960s."

Australian prime ministers supported non-communist forces it is true. But Stalin supported the communist forces. Is this not morally equivalent?

I don't see your point. I'm referring to the fact that your Prime Minister Harold Holt publicly celebrated the murder of at least a half million Indonesians by Suharto's regime.

"Well yes, of course you'll equate it with Holocaust denial"

Only because it seems to be a fringe view. I don't condemn Holocaust deniers for their beliefs (more so for their motives, and not all Holocaust deniers are Nazis). The good thing about a holocaust denial is that it has received so much press that it has received ample opportunity to be thoroughly debunked. Where as support for Stalin receives so little press that I can't really know how well it has been debunked. Maybe the case holds more water than I have given it credit for. But I have to wonder why it has so little support. Or does it have more support than I think? I am talking about disinterested support.