Bourgeois revolution

North Korean economics expert Andrei Lankov (of whom I am a very big fan) has a piece in The Korea Times today about the improving economic conditions in North Korea over the last ten years and why, contrary to expectations, this may not be good for the Kim regime:

It has often been assumed that the extreme deprivation is what might trigger the regime collapse in North Korea. This indeed might be the case, but world history shows that people seldom rebel when their lives are really desperate. In a time of mass starvation people are too busy looking for food.
Most revolutions happen in times of relative prosperity. A typical revolution is initiated (or at least prepared) by the people who have the time and energy to discuss larger issues. Another condition for a revolutionary outbreak is a widespread belief that an attractive alternative to the current existence is available.

That's an incredibly important point, and it's why (in my view) those who oppose engagement with North Korea because it somehow "rewards" the regime for bad behavior are so mistaken. My reading has suggested that the hard line on North Korea taken by the Lee Myung-Bak administration in the South means that some of this economic progress is being turned around - if that's true, and if Lankov's right, we could be extending the life of the Kim regime, not shortening it.