I think if you spoke to people who grew up in an authoritarian regime you'd be surprised by how large a role the totalitarianism of ideas and complicity of the population plays in comparison to direct violence from internal security forces or control over food. In fact it is likely to be a quiet source of shame, much as abused children might be loyal to undeserving parents.
As for "Americanized fiction", what country's foreign policy community do you believe is a more credible source? China's, South Korea's, Japan's? Of the four, the US probably has the least identifiable motivation for biasing accounts in any particular direction.
> I think if you spoke to people who grew up in an authoritarian regime
Oh, hello!
> you'd be surprised by how large a role the totalitarianism of ideas and complicity of the population plays in comparison to direct violence from internal security forces or control over food.
The complicity of the population usually plays an important role, but only when it comes to the implementation of major policies. Not in the sense that there's civil disobedience about small-scale measures, but in the sense that authorities ignore how people feel about it. Even if they disapprove, what exactly are they going to when the government decides to take their cows? Stand by them and let the policemen arrest them? Yeah, that's pretty much why they're for.
Civilian informers were doing just fine at the downfall of every major communist regime in Europe. In fact, their number might have been at a peak (I don't have a source to back this for every country, unfortunately), so you could say the complicity of the population was, if not at its highest, at least in a stable, well-paced rhythm.
Direct violence played a big role, but only to the extent that it showed the threats of the agents weren't hollow. Control over food played a hugely important role in the more rural communities, or those that had deep-rooted education issues; these communities were largely untouched by the lack of freedom which they wouldn't have exercised much anyway, but when their ability to satisfy their basic needs degraded, things went awry quite quickly wherever armed control wasn't firm and steady enough.
The idea that North Koreans, by and large, are fanatical followers of the regime is fiction, especially so late in the development of their regime.
As for "Americanized fiction", what country's foreign policy community do you believe is a more credible source? China's, South Korea's, Japan's? Of the four, the US probably has the least identifiable motivation for biasing accounts in any particular direction.