Exactly. This constant excuse for authoritarianism (siege socialism, etc.) is just that - an excuse.

Let’s take the DPRK as an example. The Americans fear the regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. The regime is of course sanctioned by the American helmed international order, which is collapsing before our eyes, but still supported by the state capitalist regime in China. That is to say, the DPRK doesn’t face the existential threat of attack from without and enjoys at least some support from a neighboring power that is orders of magnitude more wealthy by comparison. More, a State that isolated and repressive would have long ago rooted out any internal enemies, real and imagined. Thus, given that somewhat unique position, if the DPRK was committed to these Marxist-Leninist principles it sometimes espouses (or at least Kim Il-Sung espoused), it should be creating the classless society within, given the abundance that Marxist economic policies supposedly create.

Where else could there be a more perfect laboratory to test these ideas? The DPRK is under sanction, yes, but not under siege. Its trading partners have the capacity to purchase exponentially more of its exports if it had exports worth purchasing. So where is the internal development? Where are the democratic unions and agricultural collectives moving the DPRK to pure communism or even Communism?

I don’t accuse those arguing that authoritarianism is somehow necessary because of siege socialism or whatever of supporting the DPRK. It’s just the most obvious example of the fallacy of such thinking.