electoralism

First, I never said that one country is more socialist than other.

To ask "if x country isn't socialist, is any country socialist?" suggests that x country is an especially solid example. This isn't literally absolutely necessary to ask the question, but it becomes a strange thing to ask with no further explanation for why such a question is even relevant if this implication isn't being carried. More importantly:

Second, I have read the article you’ve linked and I don’t agree with the authors stances on revisionism. To me it just seems like purity testing.

I don't understand how you can take it as "purity testing" to criticize the DPRK for openly opposing anti-capitalism and the notion of classless society on even the most basic theoretical level. What do you even mean when you say "socialism" if this is socialism? If the DPRK is socialist for any reason other than using the word "socialist" to describe itself, then fucking Bismark was at least as much of a socialist (and he wasn't one), and if you were to call them Marxist, they themselves would disagree with you because it's a core rhetorical element of their state ideology that they aren't.

Furthermore, if Marxism has any specific value, revisionism is the undermining of that value, though I guess I could say that I disagree with Bland's stance on revisionism because I think he quite firmly establishes ample evidence that the DPRK is not even revisionist but instead just not Marxist or socialist at all, which is not the stance Bland takes in the article. You have seen for yourself how KIS and KJI took pains to refute almost every idea of Marx that was available to them, typically with extremely frivolous reasoning in support of completely ridiculous alternatives. What is left?

Tangentially, I do think Bland's a little harder on the co-operatives than I probably would be, but I've also struggled to find good information on them and I don't think it would really change my perspective much overall.