The Korea Conundrum

North Korea is a conundrum for apologists of "actually existing socialism" regimes.  There aren't a whole lot of Communist countries left.  China is too capitalist, Venezuela is too pink (read: not revolutionary/radical), it's too soon to judge the Maoist movement in Nepal, CCCP fell, FARC is a bunch of gangster drug lords.  Cuba seems to be doing alright, but years of sanctions have inhibited their ability to progress as a nation.  North Korea, supported mainly by the new economic boogy-man - China, stands out as a big middle finger to Western imperialism.  They have nukes, which forces superpowers like the US to take them seriously, but also to leave them alone.  Saddam Hussein never had WMD's so it was safe enough for the US to invade his country and lynch him.  Kim Jong-Il made it clear that they had a nuclear program and his son, Kim Jong-Un, has threatened to use them.

For some of us this morbid prospect is intriguing.  Of course no one wants nuclear war.  There's a slim chance that Un is just reckless enough that it might seem like a good idea to him, but I think the reality is much different.  Nuclear weapons are an ace in the hole.  The threat of using them is a powerful bargaining tool, and his wild card has been effective.  In exchange for promises to decrease the scope the N. Korean nuclear program Un has been able to secure foreign aid for his country.

However, Un is hardly a benevolent dictator.   A recent Frontline episode has exposed the hypocrisy in N. Korean pseudo-Marxism where classless socialism is the official line, while orphan children are forced to live on the streets and starve.  The episode makes the argument that a black-market of foreign cinema and television has made the people aware that there is another way.  However, they seem to argue that the emergence of a limited free market in N. Korea is a sign of hope.  As any good socialist knows, capitalism and democracy are not necessarily married.  Zizek has made clear that China is a prime example of the estrangement of capitalism and democracy (See Zizek on "Capitalism with Asian Values").

What is clear is that the N. Korean experiment has become a veritable Jonestown: a dystopian project headed towards destruction.  The buffoonery of the Kim dynasty reveals the last three "great-and-powerful-leaders'" ineptitude and has rendered them as caricatures to the outside world (See "customer reviews" on Amazon's On the Art of the Opera page).  Unfortunately, for the people of N. Korea the situation is all too real.

Film review:

The Comedy - Entitlement Tragedy

Rick Alverson's 2012 film The Comedy is a lyrical critique of the so-called "entitlement generation."  Starring Tim Heidecker as Swanson, the anti-hero protagonist, the film proves itself far superior to the other Tim and Eric film, Billion Dollar Movie, which came out the same year.  However, The Comedy is more of a tragedy than the title suggests.  It is a character study primarily, but also a poignant critique of so-called "hipsters" who have too much money and time to know what to do with.  There are a few remarks made by Swanson and his friends that are worthy of a laugh, but the awkwardness and uneasiness that Tim and Eric's comedic efforts are known for takes a dark turn in this film.  For example, he makes references to slavery and rape in his jokes that are pointedly unfunny.  These offensive themes that shows like Family Guy and South Park make light of are exposed for what they are in this film: not funny.  Actually, one of the things I have always liked about Tim and Eric's tv-shows is that they never crossed the line in this sense, particularly on racial issues and violence against women.  The edginess of their comedy owes more to scatological humor and absurdism than pushing the boundaries of political correctness.

Alverson uses alienation as a trope throughout.  The scene where the protagonist is wandering around a hospital combing the hair of random patients speaks to his longing for a human connection.  There is an uneasiness as the viewer wonders, "What will Swanson do next?"  Although he never actually does anything violent necessarily, there is a feeling that this individual is indeed dangerous.  The underlying danger of the character's behavior is exacerbated by his boredom and lack of need for resources.

The scene where he goes into a bar populated exclusively by African-American men and proceeds to mock and stereotype them reveals a duality in the character.  On the one hand, there is an interest in diversifying his community and "getting out of his comfort zone," but also a profound disconnect from reality and an inability to transcend his prejudices or even to understand others.  Another example of this disconnect in the film is when he is talking politics with a woman at a party.  When asked if he is sympathetic to socialism he says, "I think we gave up on feudalism too soon," and then proceeds to defend Hitler.

This film is incredibly relevant as there are in fact individuals in this country who find themselves in a similar position as Swanson and his friends.  I wonder if the so-called "hipsters" who have seen this film have taken it as an opportunity for self-reflection or if they have just passed it off as a boring indie film worthy of forgetting.  Perhaps people looking for scatological, absurdist humor were disappointed and eager to dismiss the film.