The New York Times recently published an interesting article with a weird headline: “As Markets Spring Up, Leader’s Grip on North Korea Slackens.”
Apparently somebody noticed that the substance of the article showed no such slackening of the leader’s grip on the DPRK, since the on-line headline has been changed to “As Economy Grows, North Korea’s Grip on Society Is Tested.”
The article shows an increase in market activity and corruption, but shows zero sign of less state power. In fact, most of its evidence comes from one person who had to flee, which undercuts the message in the print headline.
It is (probably) true that high Stalinist totalitarianism cannot survive economic growth and the introduction of private markets.
But Italian fascist totalitarianism did just fine in a wealthy market society ... and one made up of Italians, not exactly a culture wedded to obediance to authority. Saudi totalitarianism does just fine today. And if we step back from totalitarianism to simple authoritarianism, it becomes even clearer that dictatorial societies have no problem surviving market forces, even in the age of the internet. There is the People’s Republic of China, but also the Russian Federation, its little Belarussian brother, the regime in Gabon. I do not know whether the Islamic Republic of Iran should be considered authoritarian or totalitarian, but either way it does not seem to be losing its grip on power.
Here is a picture of modern totalitarianism, Jeddah circa 2007:
Looks pretty nice, no? Jeddah circa 2007 had markets, a large middle class, and a great deal of immigration. It also had the Internet. At the time, wireless service was better than in the United States. But it was thoroughly totalitarian, as the badge around my neck might indicate. The grip of the Saudi state was not to be challenged.
A prosperous but dictatorial DPRK will not look like Saudi Arabia. It might not even be totalitarian; something more like China or Russia is likely. But there is no reason to think that economic growth or modern communications will by themselves make it any more free. In fact, the modern panopticon, manned by artificial intelligences in addition to human surveillors and wedded to an elite enriched by its control over old-fashioned real estate could create a dictatorship of a power unimagined in the 20th century.
So, please, cut it out with the Whiggian optimism. Especially an American newspaper in the age of President Trump.
Comments