So the Seth Rogen and James Franco film, The Interview, will not be released in the theatres this December because hackers. Boo-fucking-hoo. The popular, common sense narrative is that this hacking was a DPRK job, but so what? The film is some asinine comedy about two Americans travelling to North Korea to assassinate Kim Jong Un, replete with the requisite "chinaman" racism (as the trailer made it very clear with its yellow peril "ching-chong-strawhat-buckteeth" chauvinism), and what existent nation would ever tolerate a mainstream and international film promoting it dissolution as a nation? Can you imagine a film comedically celebrating the assassination of the US president? You should, because it would be awesome, but the moment you imagine it you would also have to imagine its non-existence, the feds showing up at your door if you were part of such a project, or the country guilty of making such a movie being subjected to sanctions. Which are far worse, by the way, then some hacking campaign that inconvenienced the millionaires who made The Interview rather than an entire nation.
[Although the FBI is claiming the DPRK is behind this job, and Obama has even delivered a ra-ra-freedom-of-expression-is-the-American-way-of-life speech, it is worth noting that so far there is nothing beyond circumstantial evidence to prove that the DPRK is culpable. Indeed, the DPRK has denied involvement and is demanding a joint investigation. But let's pretend North Korea is responsible, and thus take the Rogens and Francos of the world at their word…]
Free speech! Even if it protects hate speech! Even if we think we're being so edgy when in fact we're just repeating the most acceptable narrative of reality in the country in which we live! The people we are insulting, whose government we mock assassinate, prove that they are anti-freedom by resenting our racist depiction of their lives––how dare they support our right to make a movie that argues for our right to subordinate them!
Whatever one thinks of the DPRK is beside the point. I don't like the Iranian regime but movies made by Hollywood imperialists, filled with orientalist tropes and designed to be part of regime destabilization for these imperialists is something that is far worse than a hacking campaign on the part of said regimes. What is more significant, here, is the fact that the US State Department and the RAND corporation were involved in the movie, meaning that this was not just some asinine winter comedy fare. More people seem interested in complaining about the hacking and suppression of a movie they want to see––as if the DPRK is threatening the entire world with a hacking campaign (if they're really behind it) that got a movie designed to destabilize them out of the theatres.
And who in the hell really cares about a movie made by Seth Rogen and James Franco. Sure, Franco has been in some pretty interesting roles, such as when he played Allen Ginsberg (though lionizing a poet whose primary political work was to defend pedophilia isn't necessarily something to be proud of, regardless of the importance of Ginsberg's poetry), but Rogen is renowned for taking offensive dude-bro roles, and then getting angry when the misogyny of these roles is challenged. Rogen also showed up in the Mindy Project as a US soldier on leave from Afghanistan, valorized as the perfect date for Mindy because of a wonderful and teary speech he delivered about how he liked bringing fresh drinking water to poor Afghan villagers––as if that's what the imperialists in Afghanistan have been doing––and someone with Rogen's star power can pick and choose his cameo roles. More importantly, Rogen and Franco were behind a petition to defend Israel during the most recent assault on Gaza, so it's pretty clear that The Interview is just an extension of their already pro-imperialist and anti-people way of seeing the world.
Did anyone really think The Interview would be an awesome movie? I mean, even if our standard for "awesomeness" was something as supremely low as it-is-racist-as-shit-but-it-still-makes-me-laugh-so-hard-that-i'm-willing-to-feel-guilty-but-keep-laughing, does anyone think it would be that "good" in the purely aesthetic comedy department? And, until now, were people sitting around and waiting, with bated breath, for The Interview? "Out of all the films to see this Holidaywood season, I'm most looking forward to the comedic genius of Rogen and Franco!" We should be thankful that the film isn't going to be released, that we've been saved from being subjected to a truly awful instance of the culture industry––they're actually doing us a favour by eliminating theatrical garbage, it's unintentional cinematic quality control.
Except now that it has been "censored" by hackers, all the people who probably wouldn't have cared to watch this film but who care about "free speech" will be up in arms: "how dare the DPRK prevent me from watching a racist film about the destabilization of their nation!" We should be able to predict the fall out, how the film's destiny will play out. A grass-roots campaign will emerge, proving again that simply because something is "grass-roots" does not mean that it is free from ideological management. The release will not be major but it will play in a variety of rep cinemas, to an audience who believe that their assembly in these venues constitutes a blow struck in the war to save free speech. Perhaps Rogen and Franco will tour with these rep cinema showings, as if they are hard-done-by artists who have to struggle to get their films recognized (like so many other independent films that have to tour without the same pre-existing audience, censored properly by the eternal laws of the free market), and it is a sure bet they will emphasize this "struggle"––not one word will be said about imperialist involvement in the film. Perhaps they will cry crocodile tears about the plight of the average North Korean, and I'm pretty sure the film doesn't show much about the average North Korean outside of stereotypes (DPRK drones or wannabe deserters in love with the west) or that Rogen and Franco were ever interested in meeting and knowing an average North Korean in the first place. Their heroic struggle to tell the "truth" in the form of dudebro jokes and a farcical story line will be emphasized. The actual shite content of the film will be mediated by the story of its supposed suppression even though this suppression will be the vehicle in which an otherwise underwhelming film will receive a place in cinematic history. DVD copies will be available in the millions, the sales of these DVDs will be greater than they would have been had this controversy not existed––the defenders of free speech will feel duty-bound to buy the bloody thing. Hell, if I was a conspiracy theorist I would be inclined to think that this hacking campaign was manufactured by The Interview's producers in order to canonize cinematic crap: it's the perfect advertising campaign for a film about the evils of the DPRK, am I right?
Thus, the DPRK might have completely failed (if it was the DPRK) to prevent a film about its regime destabilization from becoming popular. This is because US (and Canadian) citizens really like bullshit stories about the suppression of free speech, rather than real stories about exclusion and subordination that happen everyday because of their beloved "freedoms". When the dominant discourse can cast itself as the underdog, those who treat this dominant discourse as common sense are extremely happy because it justifies their conflicting desire to root for the underdog and embrace the normative state of affairs. This is the proverbial getting-your-cake-and-eating-it-too scenario.
The irony is that when Rogen was critiqued for being part of an industry that promoted misogyny, he and his supporters complained that the woman who had made this accusation was courting "controversy" to bolster her career. I guess it is not a problem when Rogen and his dudebro friends court controversy (which is only controversial for the people they are insulting and not their fans, to be clear), and now will probably profit greatly from said controversy, compared to those they accuse of pursuing the same career tactic. Indeed, regardless of the involvement of the US State Department and the RAND corporation, Rogen was really keen on promoting the film's "controversial" ideology: when Sony representatives asked him to tone down a scene they knew would be deemed offensive by North Korea, Rogen allegedly responded: "This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy… That is a very damning story." Here he's not even trying to hide his racism: he's not arguing that it is a "story of Americans changing their movie to make Kim Jong Un happy" but that is a story of Americans being asked to change their film to make North Koreans in general happy––yeah, screw what an entire people think because we Americans shouldn't have to change shit! How's that for courting controversy… Yankee styles.
In any case, we should expect that The Interview will become a manufactured "underground" blockbuster in the early new year, American freedoms prevailing under the threat of a hacking campaign, cosmetically sutured into a Hollywood canon right next to Birth of a Nation, Mandingo, Gone With the Wind, and Lawrence of Arabia.
[Although the FBI is claiming the DPRK is behind this job, and Obama has even delivered a ra-ra-freedom-of-expression-is-the-American-way-of-life speech, it is worth noting that so far there is nothing beyond circumstantial evidence to prove that the DPRK is culpable. Indeed, the DPRK has denied involvement and is demanding a joint investigation. But let's pretend North Korea is responsible, and thus take the Rogens and Francos of the world at their word…]
Free speech! Even if it protects hate speech! Even if we think we're being so edgy when in fact we're just repeating the most acceptable narrative of reality in the country in which we live! The people we are insulting, whose government we mock assassinate, prove that they are anti-freedom by resenting our racist depiction of their lives––how dare they support our right to make a movie that argues for our right to subordinate them!
Whatever one thinks of the DPRK is beside the point. I don't like the Iranian regime but movies made by Hollywood imperialists, filled with orientalist tropes and designed to be part of regime destabilization for these imperialists is something that is far worse than a hacking campaign on the part of said regimes. What is more significant, here, is the fact that the US State Department and the RAND corporation were involved in the movie, meaning that this was not just some asinine winter comedy fare. More people seem interested in complaining about the hacking and suppression of a movie they want to see––as if the DPRK is threatening the entire world with a hacking campaign (if they're really behind it) that got a movie designed to destabilize them out of the theatres.
And who in the hell really cares about a movie made by Seth Rogen and James Franco. Sure, Franco has been in some pretty interesting roles, such as when he played Allen Ginsberg (though lionizing a poet whose primary political work was to defend pedophilia isn't necessarily something to be proud of, regardless of the importance of Ginsberg's poetry), but Rogen is renowned for taking offensive dude-bro roles, and then getting angry when the misogyny of these roles is challenged. Rogen also showed up in the Mindy Project as a US soldier on leave from Afghanistan, valorized as the perfect date for Mindy because of a wonderful and teary speech he delivered about how he liked bringing fresh drinking water to poor Afghan villagers––as if that's what the imperialists in Afghanistan have been doing––and someone with Rogen's star power can pick and choose his cameo roles. More importantly, Rogen and Franco were behind a petition to defend Israel during the most recent assault on Gaza, so it's pretty clear that The Interview is just an extension of their already pro-imperialist and anti-people way of seeing the world.
Did anyone really think The Interview would be an awesome movie? I mean, even if our standard for "awesomeness" was something as supremely low as it-is-racist-as-shit-but-it-still-makes-me-laugh-so-hard-that-i'm-willing-to-feel-guilty-but-keep-laughing, does anyone think it would be that "good" in the purely aesthetic comedy department? And, until now, were people sitting around and waiting, with bated breath, for The Interview? "Out of all the films to see this Holidaywood season, I'm most looking forward to the comedic genius of Rogen and Franco!" We should be thankful that the film isn't going to be released, that we've been saved from being subjected to a truly awful instance of the culture industry––they're actually doing us a favour by eliminating theatrical garbage, it's unintentional cinematic quality control.
 |
| This is the new face of "free speech"! |
Except now that it has been "censored" by hackers, all the people who probably wouldn't have cared to watch this film but who care about "free speech" will be up in arms: "how dare the DPRK prevent me from watching a racist film about the destabilization of their nation!" We should be able to predict the fall out, how the film's destiny will play out. A grass-roots campaign will emerge, proving again that simply because something is "grass-roots" does not mean that it is free from ideological management. The release will not be major but it will play in a variety of rep cinemas, to an audience who believe that their assembly in these venues constitutes a blow struck in the war to save free speech. Perhaps Rogen and Franco will tour with these rep cinema showings, as if they are hard-done-by artists who have to struggle to get their films recognized (like so many other independent films that have to tour without the same pre-existing audience, censored properly by the eternal laws of the free market), and it is a sure bet they will emphasize this "struggle"––not one word will be said about imperialist involvement in the film. Perhaps they will cry crocodile tears about the plight of the average North Korean, and I'm pretty sure the film doesn't show much about the average North Korean outside of stereotypes (DPRK drones or wannabe deserters in love with the west) or that Rogen and Franco were ever interested in meeting and knowing an average North Korean in the first place. Their heroic struggle to tell the "truth" in the form of dudebro jokes and a farcical story line will be emphasized. The actual shite content of the film will be mediated by the story of its supposed suppression even though this suppression will be the vehicle in which an otherwise underwhelming film will receive a place in cinematic history. DVD copies will be available in the millions, the sales of these DVDs will be greater than they would have been had this controversy not existed––the defenders of free speech will feel duty-bound to buy the bloody thing. Hell, if I was a conspiracy theorist I would be inclined to think that this hacking campaign was manufactured by The Interview's producers in order to canonize cinematic crap: it's the perfect advertising campaign for a film about the evils of the DPRK, am I right?
Thus, the DPRK might have completely failed (if it was the DPRK) to prevent a film about its regime destabilization from becoming popular. This is because US (and Canadian) citizens really like bullshit stories about the suppression of free speech, rather than real stories about exclusion and subordination that happen everyday because of their beloved "freedoms". When the dominant discourse can cast itself as the underdog, those who treat this dominant discourse as common sense are extremely happy because it justifies their conflicting desire to root for the underdog and embrace the normative state of affairs. This is the proverbial getting-your-cake-and-eating-it-too scenario.
The irony is that when Rogen was critiqued for being part of an industry that promoted misogyny, he and his supporters complained that the woman who had made this accusation was courting "controversy" to bolster her career. I guess it is not a problem when Rogen and his dudebro friends court controversy (which is only controversial for the people they are insulting and not their fans, to be clear), and now will probably profit greatly from said controversy, compared to those they accuse of pursuing the same career tactic. Indeed, regardless of the involvement of the US State Department and the RAND corporation, Rogen was really keen on promoting the film's "controversial" ideology: when Sony representatives asked him to tone down a scene they knew would be deemed offensive by North Korea, Rogen allegedly responded: "This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy… That is a very damning story." Here he's not even trying to hide his racism: he's not arguing that it is a "story of Americans changing their movie to make Kim Jong Un happy" but that is a story of Americans being asked to change their film to make North Koreans in general happy––yeah, screw what an entire people think because we Americans shouldn't have to change shit! How's that for courting controversy… Yankee styles.
In any case, we should expect that The Interview will become a manufactured "underground" blockbuster in the early new year, American freedoms prevailing under the threat of a hacking campaign, cosmetically sutured into a Hollywood canon right next to Birth of a Nation, Mandingo, Gone With the Wind, and Lawrence of Arabia.
An ace post. You put all my thoughts into words.
ReplyDeleteOne quibble: I have seen Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind and nothing Rogen has ever done is going to fit in with that company, no matter how similar the backwardness of the politics. (Curious coincidence, I just had a nasty exchange with a GWTW supporter and Bruce Chadwick. Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind were made with skill.) Rogen's thing has been preciseless the artlessness with which his persona acts out baser impulses. People with real skills made the other two movies.
ReplyDeleteSteven Johnson
JMP,
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the movie? Is it a truly racist depiction? I think that it is fact that Koreans in the North worship the Kim dynasty family as a diety. You know that they claim that Kim Jong Il was born on Mt. Paektu when he was born somewhere in Russia and that doves flew Mt. Paketu when he died. So, this movie "stretches" the truth and paints North Koreans in a humorous light, but, I suppose it is OK to laugh at people when they believe such absurd things, or, it is more likely that North Korea is such a repressive society -- which the UN report confirms -- that people are forced, either by ignorance or by fear, to parade themselves around in public worshipping these assholes:
"This is now a story of Americans changing their movie to make North Koreans happy… That is a very damning story."
How is this racist? Maybe it is less racist than you think, because it gives North Korean people the ability to love their leader so dearly without external force! At least he's giving existential credit where it's due!
Secondly, how is destabilization bad? I don't understand, really. You know the North Korean film industry pumps out a lot of works against the United States and other Imperialist nations, it seems par for the course that the U.S would rightfully produce such a work that at the very least subscribes to bourgeois rights, something you think that perhaps we should not have -- given that you applaude Sony removing this film.
I really hope to respond to this but just to give you some ammunition to say I am some kind of awful counter-revolutionary -- I am -- I really hope that North Korea is totally overthrown, whether that by the righteous people of the South, or by an international community of imperialists. If you read the UN human rights document, you will see there is nothing to defend in North Korea, not one shred of anything to defend, they are a pre-bourgeois hermit kingdom and should be sent to the scrapheap of history, whether or not they want it.
With love,
Ilya
I am not arguing that the DPRK is some socialist paradise or that Kim Jung Un is a great leader in any way shape or form, so stop (again) with the red herrings––this is simply trolling. As for not having seen the film, the racism was pretty evident from every trailer so far––you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to see that this was the case.
DeleteI don't "applaud" Sony for removing this film, I just don't care and nor do I think that there has been some terrible blow struck against "free speech", that North Koreans are dictating US policy, or any of the other asinine claims Rogen/Franco and supporters are making. The "applauding" was a joke about the DPRK causing Sony to get rid of what was probably a stupid film to begin with, and it should have been clear that this was a joke.
As for your last paragraph… Forget the DPRK for a second and instead think of, say, places that were clearly reactionary. Do you think that the US should have invaded Afghanistan for "women's rights" and removing the Taliban (and the Taliban is about as heinous as you can get when it comes to anti-people treatment)––that this was a solution to the problem when all it has resulted in is a situation far worse? That's the same logic, which pretty much amounts to Cruise Missile Socialism. One can be opposed to the DPRK and not argue for imperialist intervention, which I figured that you would know being part of a blog that expresses maoism. What sort of maoism, then, are you expressing? Some Three Worlds Theory way of seeing the world where, like the October League did with Afghanistan, you are cheering on imperialism as revolutionary?
Sometimes Imperialism is revolutionary. You know when North Koreans defect from the DPRK and go to the South, they have to undergo therapy because they're so fucking ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the world it terrorizes their very soul? In North Korea, a sizeable amount of people undergo forced labor -- this is labor without renuemration, pre-capitalist! You know I am not really OK with people invading other willy nilly, but, Korea needs to be reunified under capitalism, rather than under North Korean "Socialism." and I am pretty sure that any development of bourgeois liberalism in the North is a blessing for the people, whether or not it comes at the helm of a Cruise Missile--
DeleteImperialism would probably be revolutionary in North Korea, I mean no doubt -- an end to forced labor, even if that is transformed into brutal labor in Maquiladora type factories, it's still better -- among an end to other nefarious practices which brutalize the North Korean people. While I know in my heart no cruise missile is going to change the consciousness of a nation, I don't think it's wrong to insult people who really believe Kim Jong Un is a diety and the entire regime which has been known to bayonet pregnant women.
With love,
Ilya
Name me a situation where imperialism has benefitted the nation involved. Otherwise this is just speculation. As is a substantial amount of the reporting on the DPRK––and it has been proven, based on later fact-checks, that a lot of journalists just make shit up about North Korea. None of this is to say I think that the regime is not messed up in many ways, only that it is one thing to be critical and quite another to accept a narrative that is premised on bringing capitalist "freedom" to another nation.
DeleteFinally, and this gets to the heart of the problem with your argument. If you think that the regime is so horrible that it needs to be fixed by imperialism, then on what basis do you even care if you also claim that people are completely ignorant and worthy of being insulted? On the one hand you say that the regime is bad because it is oppressive, on the other you say the people being oppressed should be insulted. Conversely, if their ignorance is due to oppression is making fun of this ignorance, and thus an entire people, all in good fun?
Also, if you're someone I know stop trolling and be principled.
JMP - the United Nations report on human rights abuses in North Korea benefits from a large number of samples and interviews. If you want to claim that the entire report is erroneous, fine, but I think that may be a stretch! It is about 400 pages. You can't say that the entirety of these inteviews, all the fact finding missions done by impartial academics and scientists who sacrificed their own livelihood to report on teh suffering of the North Korean people, is all some kind of plot. In what world is the DPRK a beacon of revolutionary sunshine that U.S. imperialism needs to be afraid of? Is any Juche study group in the world on the brink of seizing state power? You can read it yourself and be equally as horrified as I was: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/CommissionInquiryonHRinDPRK.aspx
DeleteI actually think that the Kurdish people have probably benefitted from Imperialist armaments sent to Syria and Iraq. I think that is pretty much confirmed. I don't think Imperialism has brought substantial improvements anywhere else and surely hasn't even brought bourgeois liberalism to places it has invaded -- if it really did enact a bourgeois revolution in these nations, at least it could be supportable in some way, but, it hasn't, you're right -- but the Kurdish example stands.
As for satire, yes, we should permit satire against anyone. I don't know why this is a serious problem. If you believe something stupid, why not enjoy amusement via satire? There is a lot of satire directed at the U.S. being a genocidal nation killing all the black men it can get its hands on and it's based on the truth!
With love,
Ilya
One thing to add: your response doesn't really count as a counter-argument because you did not deal with the argument from analogy. Do you think that imperialism improved the Taliban?
DeleteA more interesting question to ask, then, is whether your position implies another kind of Tankyism. That is, a tankyism where the imperialist tanks become the way in which progress is accomplished. In this sense we have an analysis of society that relies on a theory of development in which capitalist intervention becomes necessary so as to develop the infrastructure necessary for socialism…
Above comment was made while you posted yours. I never claimed that the entire report was erroneous. (I disagree with the concept of "impartial academics", though, but that's another point entirely.)
DeleteBenefitting from armaments is not the same as benefitting from a fullscale imperialist invasion. Now you're just making category mistakes.
Back to the film: I have no problem with a satire against everyone and everything in a general sense. The entire article, *again*, was saying that I don't give a shit about the film, nor do I think it would even be a good satire if past films by Rogen are anything to go on.
Dear JMP,
DeleteBeyond everything I continue to disagree with you on, there is something that hasn't been touched on in this whole debacle! Speaking of which, I just saw the clip where Kim Jong Un's dome gets set on fire and I was touched by the spirit of proletarian internationalism.
Typically, and perhaps not typically, I could be wrong, people associate censorship with states and governments. However, we know, living in Canada, USA, or the Equitorial Republic of Kundu, the best bourgeois republic in the world -- that censorship is often accomplished by private industry through what Marcuse calls repressive tolerance. Isn't this not the case here, as well? Despite what you think about the movie, the "free" market decided to suppress the Interview, just as it suppresses the subaltern voices of oppressed peoples in the US and Canada -- yet we get angry about this, because people are all patriotic about USA and don't want to be talked down to by a Swiss-educated dictator, although, I don't want to be talked down to by a Swiss-educated dictator either, just for different reasons.
Perhaps here is a lesson to the people on the nature of censorship, the "free market of ideas" really only chooses some ideas to display, while others are marginalized without state violence.
With love,
Ilya
Ah... This is probably a point that would have made a better post. I was trying to elude to it, badly and sloppily, on the points about independent films.
DeleteTo Ilya:
DeleteThe southern regime and the US have set up a demarcation line at sea and attack northern fishing boats, in a way similar to the Israelis attacking Palestinian fishing boats offshore Gaza. The point in both cases is to cause suffering to the enemy population. Mustering indignation over a Seth Rogen movie but not for that? I don't think I need to take any professions of concern for the people of the north seriously. The songbun system is a Korea wide tradition.
The arms sent to Syria ended up going to the Islamic State, which most certainly did not benefit the Kurdish people. The arms sent to Iraq helped the Barzani regime in a de facto breakup of the Iraqi state, giving a limited autonomy to some Kurds at the price of accepting Turkish repression of the Kurds. And to fight the PKK in its various forms, too, but I'm pretty sure that's not really a problem for you. There's every reason to think your fatuous daydreams about capitalist restoration in Korea will be just a real as the "good" you imagine in Syria and Iraq.
The US government is actively using the incident as an excuse for further support for even more assaults on the north. The US nearly attacked the north back under Carter. Winking at imperialist plotting because the Kim family likes to copy as many Korean monarchist tropes as possible? Any dictator (or daughter of a dictator) who overthrows the Kims will erect their own cult, and it won't be any better just because it's less comically non-Western.
Our esteemed host is much politer than I am. Your pro-imperialist apologetics stink.
Without love,
Steven Johnson
North Korea is a militarized, paternalistic society ruled by a narrow stratum of bureaucratic state capitalists. It is a stagnant and stifling society that operates according to a coercive social contract: the masses will be taken care of if they work harder and harder for the survival and benefit of the nation. The masses are kept passive and suppressed in this neo-capitalist welfare state. There is nothing revolutionary... nothing uplifting... nothing radically transformative about North Korea.
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with my article? Where do I say that the DPRK is "revolutionary" or "uplifting" or "radically transformative"? In fact, I think I made it clear that the article did not have to do with a defense of the DPRK as a socialist state. I also drew a parallel to making racist films about Iran, and I obviously do not believe that Iran is a socialist state… Nor did I think the Ba'athist regime in Iraq was revolutionary, or the Taliban in Afghanistan revolutionary, but I was still opposed to imperialist intervention. In other words, this argument has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
DeleteWho cares about this "satire"? It's just foolishness anyway and does little or nothing to enlighten people. Isn't that what political satire is supposed to do? How is this shitty movie going to anything but put the joke on N Korean people who would soon enough find out that those running the show (and making the shows) over here make the Kim's look like Barney the purple dinosaur?
ReplyDeleteWhy do so many on the left over here take every opportunity to display their talent for critique whenever N Korea comes up? Who asked? " oh there goes someone mentioning something to do with N Korea. I must SK lly exercise my duty to remind the entire planet that that regime and society an aberration, a feudal proto fascist crypto stalinmonster devoid of any further regard or defence. I am Correctlinalefty, defender of left purity in the imperial centre... Good grief . The movie is shit and I'd wager getting it stopped -- if that truly was the case---makes a better argument for the DPRK gov than against it.
Funnier still, you won't see the DPRK getting sued for something fuckin stupid like Expropriation Without Compensation. Only dummies over here sign agreements that allow bullshit like that to happen .
Like I said. Joke's on us.
RRH
PS
ReplyDeleteJust for the record,
I give even a less of a shit about what the UN has to say about anyone or anything than I do about this movie.
Sorry to get off topic a bit Comrade J. But a UN report????? They can take their report, stuff it up their asses and light it on fire with all bullshit they've been tied up in.
For me the issue is not the UN report. Once you start bringing out empirical studies you can find an empirical study to justify anything––this is the problem with positivism (it is also why, in other political economy debates you can have, for example, both those who reject and those who accept the existence of the labor aristocracy have just as much statistical and quantitative evidence for their positions, despite the fact that this evidence is contradictory), or crude empiricism. Moreover, some UN statistics have been used by the left in order to bolster arguments, so then we end up with the problem of picking and choosing what we like from data that will always be conflicted (as I noted above when I questioned Ilya's notion of "neutral observers" somehow existing outside of class).
DeleteRather than argue against this, it is better to just argue about the intrinsic contradictions of a "left" position that sees imperialist invasion as progressive. For example, by way of an analogy, I could take all of the arguments against the Taliban seriously because I knew that, yes, the Taliban was a reactionary government but, despite having a better reason to accept this (and I'm sorry to Ilya but there is no possible way the DPRK was as brutal as the Taliban), I still rejected the invasion of Afghanistan––as did pretty much everyone on the left (including revolutionary left forces *in* Afghanistan) at the time barring the likes of Cristopher Hitchens… who, by the way, also supported imperialist intervention in the DPRK.