If North Korea is undemocratic, what is the USA?

Your problem is that you equate "bourgeoise democracy" with "democracy". It is a form of democracy (with a very small demos), not the only one.

No this isn't my problem. I agree with you. I prefer democracy where everyone gets a vote.
- So you're fine with the DPRK then. They have that.
  
  Well I'm not sure you can vote Kim out. I feel like it's more of a king deal instead of a democracy there. So I see that as a major problem.
  
  if you're not sure, why make baseless assertions about the DPRK's political system?
  
  Well, help me out. I'm not a North Korean expert.
  The Wikipedia entry for Kim Jong Un currently states that he's a totalitarian dictatorship and his leadership has followed the same cult of personality as his father and grandfather.
  But if there's a non-violent way to vote Kim out of his totalitarian dictatorship. Please enlighten me.
  
  Why would you assume that a Wikipedia entry of all things is accurate? Have you looked at the sources? The citations in question are from The Independent and some Australian radio program, both of which consist of nothing but hearsay (which you'll find is true for most bourgeois "journalism").
  Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable for anything geopolitical. The Wikimedia Foundation is completely aligned with US imperial interests -- just look at how they describe the CIA World Factbook as a reliable source
  
  Well that sucks because we can't really have a discussion unless we agree on the facts.
  I think we'll have to leave it here.

"Between a democracy and an authoritarian regime I would rather be in a democracy because 9 times out of 10, it’s better for the average citizen."

Cubans have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate and actual breakthroughs in medical science that make the average citizen's life better in that department compared to the private medical system that the average American citizen pays more for in just bureaucracy and insurance parasitism than any other country with a medical program. All of that under a near-total embargo.

China's millennials has a higher home-ownership rate than most American and Canadians. I can sense you're gonna argue about "duh state!!" owning everything though when your bank or landlord can evict you within a few months when most Chinese citizens don't have to deal with these issues after the near-total elimination of homelessness. But sure, it's propaganda. Don't believe your eyes and ears when you those traveling, what they say. Only the state when it repeats the Uighur genocide mythos and how China is evil and bad. Oh, they also eat more protein than the average American while rapidly catching up in PPP.

Oh..and they lead the world in multiple academic journals.

Wait, where is the part where democracy is somehow better? I'm supposed to appreciate the opportunity to work multiple jobs for a simple apartment I have to share with 2-3 other people despite having multiple trade-skills? Really? Man, at least I have more brands of cereal and toothpaste than I know what to do with! Hopefully, they aren't locked up behind anti-theft systems like the baby formula and toilet-paper.

I think you may be confusing and conflating Democracy witch is a strategy for choosing leadership with Capitalism which is a method to distribute goods and services. You can have one without the other.
- Every successful socialist country has a central leadership of a workers' party. They are more successful than the United States in every metric besides for military spending and adults who believe in angels.
  
  Great! Add voting and it becomes better!
  
  They do vote. Actually, their options within the party are much more diverse and ranging than just two candidates serving the same interest as their ruling class. They represent multiple facets for multiple positions not only within the party but for the country itself and it's direction for the working class.
  When is the last time America made a decision for the working class? Turns out voting doesn't fill my fridge, make better job opportunities or remove bigoted, mouth-frothing social murderers from power.
  Why the fuck should I care about it, you smug dickhead?
  
  Why does everyone think I am defending America, I am not. I.just like democracy. Glad there is voting in this system.
  
  My apologies then, repeating that you love democracy, voting, etc in what could be construed as an antagonistic manner under a informative post about North Korea could be taken as a "baiting" tactic done by most libs common to the spectrum of the West.
  
  I see that. My original post was just criticizing the memes conflation of leadership choice type with benefits that the civilians have. A democracy will not always be better for the people than a dictatorship, but most the time it will be better.
  I mean this meme is basically pro-authoritarian. I don't know what they were trying to go for but I feel like that's not it.
  
  What we're giving you is factual evidence that an authoritarian system to prevent an overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat is actually great as it prevents capitalist roaders and other subversive entities from betraying a revolution that hundreds of thousands died for.
  China and Cuba were pieces of this evidence that you ignore when you say "more democracy is always better". In a global capitalist economy, it is not, because of an exploitative economic system that upsets and destroys the benefits of "liberal democracy".
  
  The problem is corruption is a part of any political system. Democratic/Authoritarian. It doesn't matter. The reason why Authoritarian systems are not as good a Democracies for the people is that in Authoritarian systems there is one point of power, the leader. If that person stops caring about the people, then that becomes a big problem. Another revolution will need to happen.
  In a Democracy the power is with the people (If done well. The US news got bought out by the bourgeoisie thus dooming us). It is harder and more expensive to corrupt that.
  Given we don't find a way to ideologically stop capital, it will always be corrupting whatever government. Another revolution will always need to happen. It just takes longer for Democracies to decay.
  
  The DPRK has voting as well. 😉 The best part of the voting in the DPRK is that the results are very favorable for their citizens compared to the US.
  
  Can they vote out their supreme leader? I'm not defending the US here, we are headed to a bad place. We may end up looking like the DPRK pretty soon.
  
  Yes, they can and, if you need more information on how the DPRK governance works, you can open a post in c/asklemmygrad for books and sources. Also, if the US ended up like the DPRK, that will actually be the best thing for US citizens because they will no longer have to pay taxes, no longer have to protest for the amount of shenanigans that their rich capitalists constantly do, they will have free housing, cheap food, free healthcare and free education. In other words, they will have a gov't that is actually working for their people and not for their rich. So... ending like the DPRK is actually the goal for plenty of people and it is not a bad thing as you tried to suggest. A really bad place will be Nazi Germany and that's where the US is headed(or already is 🤔).

For all the crowing about authority, developed* socialist states would appear to be far more democratic than anything liberal capitalism can muster up. The primary difference is that communists are not generally dishonest about power, nor want to obfuscate it because doing so would make it difficult to actually carry out a project of transitioning away from capitalism -> building socialism -> building communism. So they don't act demure about it and pretend that power is this uwu hard to understand thing that has vexed humans for millennia until something something ancient greece I guess and now we figured out ruling (yeah I know this is a simplified take on liberal views of ruling, but people really do talk about it like it's this incredibly hard thing to understand, while ignoring the specter of the capitalist class staring down on them with police and military pointed in their direction). Anyway, it's not that socialist states are exercising power or force any more than the liberal capitalist regimes; it's that they're using it differently and in the interests of, and by the direction of, the working class. A certain amount of liberal capitalist power is obfuscated through the NDA-ridden mechanics of private entities whereas the processes are made much more transparent in socialist states.

Or to put it another way, the capitalist class hides much of its "authoritarian" practice behind a corporate process and claims individual causes and plausible deniability. Socialist states force corporate processes to be on something of a leash, at the behest of the working class. And to the anti-communist, this somehow makes socialism "authoritarian" and blackbox corporations with little to no accountability "free". It's a lot of mental gymnastics.

*side note: when I say developed above, I'm referring essentially to establishing the revolution firmly enough that a process of working class representation has been constructed, something that won't necessarily be immediate right after taking power, since you have to build the mechanisms for it where they didn't formerly exist in a way that is protected by a vanguard party.

It seems like you assume I am a capitalist, I am not. Being pro democracy does not mean one is pro capitalist.
- you do automatically assume countries that aren't capitalist are authoritarian, though. democracy isn't just voting between two major parties at election time.
  
  No, the system to distribute goods and services ex capitalism, socialism, communism. Are not the same things as who's in charge and why. Ex Democracy authoritarian.
  A state will usually pick one from column a and one from column b. And you can mix it up however you like.
- I guess I don't know what you're trying to say then. Based on your other comment, it sounds like you're saying you think governance and economy are separate? But in practice, this is absolutely not the case. They are intertwined.
  
  You are correct they are entwined, but you can have a democratic communistic system. Or a Democratic Socialist system. Voting does not create capital inherently.
  
  Have you read State and Revolution by Lenin? I hate to do the "go read something" type of message, but I strongly recommend it if you haven't. He goes into the concept of a socialist state and what the point of it is. If you have no familiarity with that context, we might just be talking past each other.
  
  I have not, so in this socialist state proposed by Lenin. Is it a Democracy? If not, then it could be improved by Democracy.
  
  It is a dictatorship of the proletariat (working class), which sounds less democratic than it is if you go only by the word "dictatorship" and don't read it in the context of the monopoly on violence that every state has. It essentially (at risk of oversimplifying) means that the working class has democratic power and doesn't allow the capitalist class to have it. So in a word, is it a form of democracy? I would say so. But if one's view of democracy is something more akin to a populist free-for-all, they might not agree; though I'm not sure there is such a thing as a free-for-all democracy in any state or community in history. Whose interests are being represented is a critical question, especially as class and/or caste stratified societies and global systems are concerned.
  
  I'm good with the dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you can become one through non-violent means like getting rid of your Capital and if the proletariat can vote.
  
  It's pretty much impossible to change a system of power without some violence because the existing state power has a monopoly on violence. But if it makes you feel any better about it, historically, it's not like communists tend to like or desire violence and sometimes the technical beginning of a revolution (where power changes hands) may have minimal violence overall. As it is meant to be a cause sympathetic to most people in the society, you would not expect that regular people will be fighting it massively, provided it does a successful job of working for their needs. But like, the newly formed Soviet Union was attacked by western powers very quickly. Or like, Fidel Castro was targeted by multiple assassination attempts and Cuba has suffered from economic embargo for decades, in the US's attempt to squeeze it out and force the conditions for an overthrow of the communists. Point being, it's not like the capitalist class hands over power willingly and historically, they can get very brutal toward those who stand against them.
  Hell, we're currently seeing an example of the brutality in how the US acts with its desperate tariffs toward China and other countries. Even though the US empire sits on mounds of gold (figuratively speaking... well maybe literally too if Fort Knox still has a lot of gold), it will not be satisfied until every country bends the knee and becomes a vessel to extract from, and even then, the exploitation and extraction is not sustainable. And China refuses to and is powerful enough now to shift the balance of global power away from the US. In their case, they are doing it without even firing a shot, which is some impressively complex geopolitical organizing. The interdependent ties they have built, the manufacturing they have at home, and so on. Hopefully any actual shots fired needed in dismantling the empire will be minimal, but we have to expect and prepare for the idea that it will not all go peacefully. And some protracted fights are in progress right now, like the cause of Palestinian liberation, with the Houthis playing a pivotal part in defending them in the region.
  So in summary, would love it if it was all bloodless and world liberation could be achieved without firing a shot. History, as well as the inherent problem in trying to non-violently achieve liberation out of a system that is rabidly violent, shows that's not how things happen in practice, but it's a nice sentiment.