One thing that came to mind was Malcolm Gladwell’s critique of the so-called “Twitter Revolution.” As Gladwell points out, social media does not determine the success or failure of a social movement or revolution. It takes group solidarity, organization and a strong sense of purpose. These variables, it seems, will have an effect on the threshold function.

The expansiveness of Cumings’ writing is his both his sweet butter and sour milk. He left me wondering at times how, exactly, this person or that event tied into the overall theme of the book. Either that, or I was subtly venting frustration because I didn’t know who William Alexander McClung is, or wasn’t familiar enough with Donald Worster’s Rivers of Empire. I suppose this is what separates a historian from a non-historian-student.

Cumings greatest value to academia is, indeed, his willingness to venture into the unchartered. Or, if not unchartered, at least “unpopular.” As a Korean professor I was with put it mildly: “Cumings… yeah. He isn’t popular with conservatives here.”

“At the time of Kim Il-sung’s death, ideology was the guiding factor that determined loyalty of the populace, but under Kim Jong-il, money became the key means by which to ensure advancement, and patronage is the primary means by which loyalty is obtained.”

The rest of the article seems to be a challenged to Myer’s central claim: legitimacy is the basis of political continuity.

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/12/23/deja-vu-in-north-korea-not-quite-succession-1994-vs-2011/