Hello. It sounded to me as though you were putting in a plug for U.S.-style 'socializing' against N. Korean insistence on its sovereignty and all we're told that means; dictatorial, insane rule.
Liem's comments made it sound as though there is a well reasoned submission to the requirement for resistance to all these chaotic, frequent, periodic reorganizations of society here in the U.S., reorganizations that scream confusion, individualistic search for recognition from masses, and resultant beauties now and then - kind of like producing art through drug-induced states, which I've long sorrowed over.
You asked if there might be (implying advancement) a move toward – however you said it – more ‘open’ society. Liem was explaining the control in order to save N.Korean sovereignty.

We’re supposed to think of one-party states as wrong, bad, dysfunctional. Liem categorized it quite well; they have other things to do – maintenance, for one, and resistance for another, until they are strong enough to continue those regardless the relentless assault on them.

I find the wild searching unpleasing, as it kind of must be. Any appealing stuff that comes from it seems to rise out of drug induced states. That means people are so suppressed here that the only release – or rationalization for doing the art/creating they might – is through using drugs.

Constantly enraged about imperialism’s brutal envelopment of the world, I’ve only been able to see N. Korea’s resistance to it. Yes, I and people near me did not suffer the brutality of suppression by the N. Korean effort – and I barely know it, actually. But I don’t get how hippie-ness and sex-change operations etc. bespeak liberation – or efforts for liberation. Quite the opposite. I, left out – largely by choice but also by my material conditions, have opted for communistsocialistanarchist struggle instead, wherein at least the product of our work is in tune with our desires, out front, not nodding away from reality in order to produce a livable chaos or whatever that re-formation is. And sexual engagement is easy, honest, instead of according to ads on tv and the sides of bus shelters.

These might be your ideas, too – not challenging yours – just the question – did you mean that U.S.ist diversions including having a two party system are necessary to connote – liberation? justice?
(I don’t think you’d mean that...)
Norma