anarchism in the republic of korea to the present day (part one)
anarchism has never been as big in the republic of korea as the sex pistols
made it in england. (where is vivienne westwood when you need her?)
maybe that's why it's pretty hard to find out about the real history of
the korean anarchist movement. maybe it's because I'm a transient new
zealander who just popped into town 6 months ago. maybe it's because my
korean language skills are limited to basic survival needs, eg. "hello
respected older woman, how much for a juicy kilo of your finest mandarins?"
maybe, but having already made contact with local anarchists through the
net before I arrived and having a friend who was already here checking
the place out and meeting all the right people, i'd say it's for several
other reasons.
beginnings...
firstly, there hasn't been a continuous thread of ideas or activity since
western anarchist ideas were introduced to east asia in 1906. a chap by
the name of kotoku, shusui returned to japan from a six month trip to
the us. he shocked his various socialist friends by declaring a change
of political/philosophical ideas. he brought back with him a mixture of
anarcho-communism and syndicalism and began translating popular anarchist
texts of the day into japanese. likewise in china, ideas from the west
began spreading as a result of kotoku's return and through connections
with chinese students living and working in paris and dissident chinese
intellectuals living in tokyo.
in korea, anarchism didn't emerge until after japan had occupied (officially
korea was annexed in 1910) and as a result, korean anarchism came of age
in an environment where the primary goal was to gain liberation from imperialist
oppression. this aim also overshadowed the activities of korean anarchists
living in manchuria and japan. they organised to establish an economic
system of mutual aid and worker-based control of production, but predominantly
in an effort to better organise the anti-colonial struggle. from those
early days until the relative freedoms of the 1990's, anarchists have
faced the severe repression of a series of colonising forces and military
dictatorships, often surviving by a withdrawal from public activity and
maintaining contact with each other through private correspondence but
not engaging in any public action.
another reason for the difficulty in learning about korean anarchist history
is that much of the work of anarchists has been skewed to suit current
ideals about who was fighting against japanese imperialism and for what
reasons. for example, anarchist shin, chae-ho, who wrote the 'manifesto
of the korean revolution' in 1923 has gone down in history as a nationalist,
as are anarchist anti-imperialists who were imprisoned and tortured at
seodaemun prison. we are not told they were anarchists, but 'ui-sa,' or
'big event patriotic fighters' which to my mind has a totally different
connotation.
finally, a lot of anarchists were involved in the struggle for national
liberation alongside nationalists and communists and it can get tricky
to make a distinction between a nationalist and an anarchist involved
in 'un-anarchist' activities.
to whit; a provisional korean government in exile was established in shanghai,
china in 1919 by "the national united front of revolutionary parties
and socialistic parties."1 among it's members were yu, ja-myeong
of the korean federation of revolutionaries and yu, rim of the korean
anarcho-communist federation.
their involvement was later justified by korean anarchist ha, ki-rak's
vision of
'a government of non-governing'. non-government means non rule and non-exploitation
and government means the social management of human lives by the people
themselves, namely independent self-government. therefore there is no
contradiction between the two conceptions of non-government and government.
(ha, 1986, p.81.)
it seems like a pretty dodgy thing for anarchists to be doing...establishing
themselves in positions of power; in government no less, and then justifying
it with a contradictory assertion that to govern is not to govern!
to my knowledge, this is a unique approach to the anarchist idea of decentralisation
of power. most anarchists I know would have more trouble agreeing with
ha, ki-rak that they would with george woodcock who wrote:
the sharp difference between the anarchist conception of strategy and
…[that of other movements]…arises partly from libertarian individualism
and partly from the conviction… that, in a larger sense at least
means profoundly effect ends…the anarchists regard all institutions
and parties based on the idea of regulating social change by governmental
action and man-made laws [sic] as counter-revolutionary. in proof of this
argument, they point to the fact that all revolutions carried out by political
means have ended in dictatorships; the resort to coercion has transformed
them and betrayed the revolutionary ideal. (george woodcock, anarchism;
a history of libertarian movements and ideas, new ed, 1986, p.29.)
after world war 2
 august
of 1945. wwII is over and the russian army has attacked the japanese military
in present day north korea. by september, the american military has arrived,
a little miffed that russia is expanding and feeling all big and victorious.
this is a crucial time for the lefties: "burglar japan"2 has
been defeated, is retreating and there is a chance to rebuild society
after the devastation of japanese social and economic pillage.
about 60 anarchists gather in jong-no and establish the 'free society
builders league' and the 'farmers and labourers league'. they are interested
in exploring the possibilities that are open a newly liberated country
and educating people about there options. they discuss how to establish
communities and social organisations working toward independence and mutual
aid. of course, it wasn't just anarchists working at this time to spread
propaganda about post-colonial possibilities. everyone had their own ideas
and with the recent arrival of russia just across the way, socialists
were promising farmers their own land and espousing ideas of state communism.
because the american military forces disallowed their status as a government,
members of the government in exile returned to korea as individuals. yu,
rim held a lot of personal power and was respected as old and clever.
many were looking to him for direction. at the time he was quoted by a
local newspaper as saying,
it seems that the word 'anarchism' has been used as being synonymous with
'non-government' in korea. but it's a misinterpretation of 'anarchism'
by japanese scholars. to tell the truth, 'an-' means 'without or not,'
and 'archi-' means 'boss or chief, that is compulsory power.' therefore
anarchy means 'absence of compulsory power or control.' i am an anarchist
who rejects compulsory power, but not a non-governmentist who objects
to an autonomous government. an anarchist objects only to a heteronomous
government. (ha, 1986, p.122.)
this statement sets yu, rim well apart from the larger body of anarchist
theorists. while many anarchists will debate the finer points of theory
and certainly of practice, it is a basic principle of anarchism that all
forms of government, whether by other (hetero-) or not, are compromising
of personal and community autonomy.
as any anarchist will argue (perhaps not the 'anti-heteronomous government'
kind) power doesn't rest with the people until all power is decentralised.
when you are liberated from the clutches of one authority, another lot
(in this case the ussr, uk, and the usa) can step in to negotiate a division
between resource-rich north and agricultural south, between left and right-wing,
further crippling the people's attempts to rebuild society. while this
time is generally referred to as one of 'liberation', many contemporary
korean anarchists don't see it as liberation at all, just an occupation
by the american military instead of the japanese.
during the struggle for freedom from colonial japan, left and right wing
organisations were fighting alongside each other, although some considered
anarchist methods extreme and violent. while there was initially support
for their anti- japanese imperialist stance, the right wing later saw
the anarchists as an obstacle. when the country was divided, many lefties
went north to the socialist state and the nationalist position was strengthened
by their departure. this extra strength put extra pressure on those anarchists
who remained in the right-wing dominated south.
during april, 1946, anarchists from 'the free society builders league',
'the korean anarchist general federation', 'the black friend league' and
'the league of truth and fraternity' gathered in anui, south kyeungsang
province. at the conference, the tumultuous international situation and
the rather dire local one was discussed.
since occupation in 1910 japan had been exploiting korean resources as
a supply for it's own economic needs and hindering development so that
korean-controlled/owned industry was severely retarded. (john crump, "anarchism
and nationalism in east asia", anarchist studies, 1996, vol 4, no.
1) the majority of the financial, trade, transport, administrative and
productive infrastructure had been controlled by japanese colonists, roughly
3% of the population. at the conference, those interested in rebuilding
society were faced with the questions of what to do and how to go about
it. what was their response to this situation? how did they unanimously
feel they could best meet their own goals of "human freedom"
and "the protection of peace"?3
we [will] do our best to establish an autonomous and democratic united
government for our independent fatherland. (ha, 1986, p.13.)
are korean anarchists reformists?
 there's
been a fair amount of criticism levelled at the reformist and nationalist
tendencies within the korean anarchist movement, both from within the
contemporary movement and externally. in his article "anarchism and
nationalism in east asia" john crump examines the reasons for this
peculiar korean interpretation of anarchism .
anarchism in korea has been notable for the extent to which it has been
permeated by nationalism and also for the korean anarchists' readiness
over many years to engage in conventional politics. the immediate reason
for these peculiarities of korean anarchism would seem to lie in korea's
colonial subjugation by japan from 1910 to 1945 and the division of the
country after 1945. (crump, 1996, p. 45.)
he argues that in the kind of 'third world', anti-colonial setting that
existed in korea, anarchist principles of decentralisation of power and
local autonomy can easily start to sound like nationalist calls to keep
power in the hands of the subjugated people, rather than the colonial
power. hence the danger of "degeneration into nationalism" (crump,
1996, p.45). anarchism has not had a strong history in colonised countries,
but crump suggests that had it, we might have seen more cases of movements
succumbing to nationalism. and this is the nationalism of the subjugated,
not of the imperialist power. the desire of a colonised people to be free
of their shackles, not the desire of a nation state to expand its power
base. the distinction is important if we are to understand the situation
where, perhaps, this readiness to compromise the cornerstones of anarchism
were the desperate measures of people witnessing the carving up of their
hopes for a free and independent existence. perhaps they saw involvement
in conventional politics as the only means to remain part of any decision
making at all.
in anui, 1946 conference goers faced the same question that anarchist
movements face today: will our principles of non-engagement in party politics
completely isolate us from the wider community? are our options to remain
ideologically pure, but marginalised, or engage in decision-making within
organisations that are hierarchical and coercive?
while one arguably more dominant trend veered toward the party politic,
a movement was active that sought to make a social, not political organisation.
one venerable elder anarchist living in seoul, lee, mun-chang was involved
in this mun-chang took advantage of these times. he met people, one man
in particular whom he came to respect very much, who began talking about
anarchism with him. he felt a stronger desire to be part of a social grassroots
movement than a political one and he spoke with me about the work he considers
the most important of his life, his time working with the "farm volunteers
association"…
in april 1960, students were rising up against the president and their
professors followed them. the students respected their professors very
much and when evaluating their activities they asked the professors 'what
do we do now?' the anarchist professors told them most people live in
the countryside, there is not much land and too many people. they suggested
the students go into the rural areas and educate the people about alternatives
to the status quo. at the time there was little industry and they concluded
they could engage in light industrial manufacturing. in one group we built
community workshops, asked the clothing manufacturing industry for a machine
and started training.
lee, mun-chang was a delegate and worked as a liaison between the students,
who would travel from seoul during the weekends and the people living
full time in the country. the goal of the 'farm volunteers association'
was to make a village or town independent by manufacturing goods and then
selling their products in the city. certainly they were influenced by
the likes of kropotkin's fields, factories and workshops, by narodnovick,
by the makhnovists, by durruti's activities during the spanish civil war
and a number of anarchists were involved. however, their discourse wasn't
fully anarchist, nor were they openly against the government (manic).
given the military/political repression facing anarchists and other activists
at the time, personal survival was at stake. maybe we harbour romantic
notions of defending our beliefs with our lives and maybe a time will
come when we have to make this choice. under the dictatorship of lee,
seung-man these were such times.
from 1961-1980, the military state was pushing for the development of
heavy industry, gathering people into the cities in the classic industrial
'urban drift' and subsequently destroying the village system. student
power was broken. certainly there was resistance during these years of
tyranny, but for the most part the cry was for democracy, for capitalism
and the free market.
- eleven
endnotes
1 ha, a history of the korean anarchist movement, 1986, p.112.
2 a term used by shin chae-ho in the "manifesto of the korean revolution,
1923."
3 ha, 1986, p.144.
Part Two will examine the current Korean anarchist movement.
|
CONTENTS
from argentina to aotearoa
anti-capitalist uprising
in argentina: an analogy
organising against capitalism
in the 21st century
conference report
anarchy in the r.k
bac to smog
the 24 milion dollar minute
war is terrorism
aotearoa news round up
|
|
