DPRK is sovereign country and not a colony. Koreans electing Kims is not the same as France electing Bongos. Not to mention the closer look at maintaining this power.

I find it very hard to have firm opinions about the modern DPRK's internal politics because virtually all English language media on the subject is shot through with decades of the most virulent propaganda. There's a high chance that any of the key U.S. narratives on the subject -- such as the Kims being essentially an absolute monarchy -- are more bullshit than reality.

Some folks on here are more knowledgeable, though, and describe the Kims (certainly in the modern DPRK) as having a kind of Queen of England (rest in piss) role: most of the real governing is done in other bodies, but they have some influence/authority and aren't pure figureheads.

You'll have to forgive the copy-paste reply, I answered about the same question on r*ddit. Even if you aren't read-up on DOR Korea enough to take it at face value that they're socialists, there are key differences.

We know for a fact that the Kim family aren't enriching themselves or exploiting their country's resources like the western backed dictators. If they were living with all the luxuries of the modern day bourgeoise or cheaply selling ores or whatever resources for cheap, that'd be quite difficult to hide. This is also why the only argument westerners have to prove their luxury is how fat they are in a country with such low obesity rates, obviously not a serious argument that merits a response. I don't know about Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-Il's positions, but Kim Jong-Un really isn't in a position of supreme authority. In fact, he has less direct control over policy than most western leaders.

On the other hand, Omar Bongo (the father) was literally installed by de Gaulle. He had french backing from day 1, he and his family lived in all the bourgeois luxuries and exploited the natural resources of the country to the benefit of France just like the rest of the neo-colonies in west Africa.

Best way to learn about Korea would be to read up on the war and the writings of Kim Il-Sung. If you need convincing more than clarity, you can read Che and Fidel had to say about the DPRK.

In addition to what others said, I think most people have critical support for DPRK. We recognize that it's a sovereign state that strives towards communism, but that' doesn't mean that it's without problems. In my view, the fact that it's been the same family in charge is something that can be legitimately criticized. There are reasons why this may be the best option in terms of stability right now given that DPRK is under siege from the west, but obviously it's not an ideal situation.

We do not support the DPRK because of any supposed liberal-democratic trappings. We support it because despite suffocating under US-American pressure, its government compares exceptionally favourably to others with similar national wealth, eg. Somalia and Haiti, when it comes to development of its own material conditions as well as the quality of life; which is why it is frankly delusional to conceive of the West installing any government in North Korea, be it dictatorial or democratic, that makes better of the poor resources than the current one.

Aside from what others have said, which I think is more important, I would like to point out that most of us don't really like the informally dynastic position of the Kims and might prefer the family retiring to at least lesser roles in politics, all other things being equal. I think most of us would consider it something of a middle ground that there is a trend across the decades of the Kims continuously diffusing the powers of their respective offices to other offices, decentralizing authority, to such an extent that two Kims have technically never held the same top executive position because it was abolished and replaced* at some point between the start of their respective first terms and their respective deaths. I'd expect that last bit to become obsolete eventually but for the general point about diffused authority to persist for some time.

*this is part of the reason that the term "supreme leader," which is an honorific (like "Your Honor," etc.) and not an office, gets used to describe their position.

As a further caveat, all three of them have been at various points General Secretary of the WPK, which is a significant office, but that's not the head of state and there have been long stretches when they were not occupying it (though information on these things is a bit annoying to find).