>Leaders, like it or not, are like an individual, and it could certainly describe the relationship between the Party and the Leader (which I think I read).
They most certainly are an individual in the meaning of representing a single soul and spirit.However, this does not at any given time invert or decalre the roles they play in the givne society, the leader, plays the role of the satisfaction of a succesful organization of the resources of a said group, which, makes it in both juche and socialism as a whole, slave to its intrest int it of themselves, this could be exactly, were democracy breaks off from oligarchy or its more extreme form, monarchy, not in the form of organization as we first see it, its initial fase, but that of whom it answers to in the end, one to the majority rule and the other to a single entity.
"The pre-eminence of the leader puts the whole and the parts into focus, like how a people need one whole person to give them an identity.".
> It reveals one whole body, but extended out to a greater political body (like the cover of Leviathan, I suppose).
Not precisely, as i´ve said, the leader, as a representative, is only a consequence, a manifestation, if the contrary would be true, then how did they now who to choose, exactly?, did they improvise and declare vaguely that someone could represent them?, most surely not, after all, it is because of the class struggle existing that Figure heads like Stalin were chosen as secretary general, not because Stalin was elected that class struggled was initiated, the magnitude of the volition was already defined, the leader, only gave it a concrete direction, as in any group, like the most common one, that of the army, where soldiers already have the will to fight, they are just simply organized by those in command.
>Juche also states that man is sociable, and I generally see that closer to Aristotle who makes the case that the whole comes prior to the parts (individual and family/collective) like how it isn't a whole hand without an individual thumb, but neither a collective of fingers.
Man is sociable, whether he likes it or not, from the beginning of our lives we are shaped by the lives of those around us by default, and here then out, from the things we wear, understand and speak, this is a model of human development that is not unique to juche at all, it belongs to many an anti-materialist and materialist, see Hegel for example, and as him many others, that one preaches collectivism then, has nothing to do with Aristotle exactly,.Your error is one of confused causality, you assume that one characteristic already defines all to be, ironically, no different from the short sighted Anarchist, that seeks to demonstrate his straightened will, every time he witnesses even the least presence of authority.