MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT POSITION PAPER ON KOREA Last edit: 8/26/92 A Line on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by mc5 Amerikans are involved in the reunification issue of Korea because there are 30,000 U.S. troops and thousands of nuclear warheads stationed in the south allegedly to defend against the north's imminent attack. There is also a video out on the DPRK's living conditions. It would be good to get some real recent info on their economy, which is still partly shrouded for security reasons. The DPRK may be one of the richest "socialist" countries out there. The Amerikans and the South may be in for some surprises somewhere down the line, which is not to say that communists are not in for some unfortunate surprises in Korea. What follows is simply where the DPRK falls relative to Maoism theoretically. My sources are Kim Il Sung's book, On Juche in Our Revolution, vol. 2 and Socialist Korea, Brun and Hersh, eds. Maoism The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) government considers Korea to be one of the few colonized nations left in the world. They don't even refer to Korea as semi-colonial. (Kim, 135) In talks with the Americans in 1989, they said their goal is to "be an independent, non-aligned and neutral country." DPRK leader Kim Il Sung has made "juche" the "sole guiding idea of our Party" (Kim, 339) for decades. "Juche" translated means "self-reliance in the economy," military "self-defense" and "political independence." (Kim, 372) "It means the embodiment of independent and creative spirits; the people must adopt an independent creative stand to solve mainly by themselves all the problems arising from the revolutionary struggle and constructive work." (Kim, 339) According to Kim Il Sung, "flunkeyism and dogmatism" set back the Korean revolution. In fact, the Comintern kicked out the Korean party in 1928 because of so many factional fights among small groups of Korean communists following other communists. (Kim, 379) By flunkeyism in this context, Kim Il Sung means copying the ideologies of other communists in other countries. Flunkeyism receives the brunt of his criticism, not dogmatism, partly because flunkeyism is a general nation-wide problem in ideology. "The flunkeyists claim that they have nothing which is useful and that everything foreign is good." (Kim, 382) During the Cultural Revolution in China and its aftermath, Kim referred to China and the Soviet Union as socialist countries. In the readings in the volume On Juche, Kim never criticizes either country by name. Instead he faults the Soviet Union for taking a "right economist" stance of adopting capitalist management and profit as a criterium of production. Many of his criticisms of the Soviet Union would not sound good in the ears of Deng Xiaoping. On the other hand, Kim refers to China as making "left" errors, namely dividing the people against each other, undermining solidarity and saying the struggle to build socialism will take several generations, maybe thousands of years. (For a discussion of right and ultra-"Left" errors in Kim's party in terms of the law of value, see (Kim, 188-98). Comrades should be able to distinguish Kim's line from the Maoist line and the Soviet line.) In contrast, Kim believes that the material basis for socialism can be completed simply by "working-classizing" the peasantry, revolutionizing the middle classes through economic construction success and pushing the ideological struggle forward. (Kim, 12-13) He argues that Marx felt that socialism would arise quickly in Germany and England because of their advanced industry. He says Lenin saw socialism taking more time because of the existence of a majority peasantry in Russia. (Kim, 4) He refers to the DPRK as in transition to socialism, the complete victory of socialism, which is a lower phase of communism according to Kim. Kim distinguishes the transition to socialism from the dictatorship of the proletariat. Kim believes a country or small region can become completely socialist and even communist while the rest of the world still suffers from imperialism. Apparently in Kim's eyes, national, gender and intellectual divisions in society may exist while people "produce according to ability and receive according to need." For this reason dictatorship of the proletariat will be necessary until imperialism dies according to Kim. (Kim, 2-15) Not surprisingly, having rejected Mao's view of continuous revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, Kim also accepts Stalin's views of class struggle. Ironically, Hoxha, Deng Xiaoping, Hua Guofeng and Kim Il Sung all basically had the same view of class struggle, which includes 1) overthrown landlords and capitalists, 2) foreign class enemies, 3) the struggle to modernize the society and eliminate the peasantry by industrializing it and 4) ideological struggle. Kim Il Sung's view does not include a crucial item from Mao's view-- the existence of a new bourgeoisie in the party under the dictatorship of the proletariat. At the same time all four leaders Deng, Hua, Hoxha and Kim have called for class struggle within the party at one time or another. Most recently Deng Xiaoping joined the ranks by saying there was a "bourgeois liberalising" influence in the party in the person of Zhao Ziyang and that China was going to become a "capitalist republic" if this influence were not stopped. The funny thing about these Stalinists and pseudo- Stalinists is that they don't notice you can't have a class struggle within a party if there is no bourgeoisie in the party to struggle against! While Kim refers to flunkeyists in his own party, perhaps he would say there is no one in his party who pushes a bourgeois line. What about the Soviet Union though? Did it merely commit rightist errors or is it now capitalist? And Albania? Summing up Kim Il Sung's line Kim Il Sung is correct to focus on his country's independence from colonialism. Already the Korean people's just struggle has wiped out the landlord class in its decadence and dependency on foreign powers. Kim Il Sung's position that you can't have communism until you have a country freed from colonialism echoes Mao. The Korean people will always be preoccupied until relatives are reunited, foreign troops are expelled and economic and cultural intercourse resumes. MIM believes that even if the DPRK does have aggressive intentions toward the South, that is Korea's business. The UN did not protect Korea's national sovreignty by allowing the U.S. invasion of Korea. Civil wars within countries should not invite foreign intervention. The constant tension on the Korean peninsula caused by the imperialist intervention leaves the DPRK in a position unique relative to other so-called socialist countries. Albania for instance does not have the problem of foreign occupiers. Perhaps the most parallel situation is the NPA base areas in the Philippines or the EPLF situation in Eritrea until recently. Even these comparisons are not quite right though because the DPRK has a much better developed economy. In any case, while MIM supports the Korean struggle for self- determination, it faults Kim Il Sung and his party for confusing the people's struggle on the question of the Soviet Union and China. The ideological stance on these two countries is not a matter of differing interpretations in different countries. Communists everywhere must recognize the Soviet Union, China and Albania as state-capitalist countries or risk confusion and ideological bankruptcy. It is also by now painfully clear that there was a bourgeoisie in each of these parties. Communists everywhere do indeed mourn the losses in the Soviet Union, China and Albania. Still communists may be thankful that history has made the future course of class struggle clearer. Through several parallel experiences, communists learn that contradictions in the relations of production will have their reflection and embodiment in the ruling communist party itself. In theory, Kim Il Sung has always put forward a radically different political economy than the Soviet revisionists have. Still even Kim Il Sung supporters Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh conclude as early as 1976 that the DPRK will end up choosing between "politics in command" and Soviet-style state capitalism. (Ellen Brun and Jacques Hersh, Socialist Korea: A Case Study in the Strategy of Economic Development (NY: Monthly Review, 1976), p. 401) >From MIM's readings of documents and discussions with the DPRK comrades, MIM fears that the DPRK has already slid into blatant Soviet-style state-capitalism in practice. On this point, MIM hopes to be proved wrong. On the other hand, MIM is quite sure that no party can lead its own society forward without correct bearings on the international communist experience. As of the most recent documents available, the DPRK still refers to the Soviet Union and China as "socialist" countries, thus causing grave harm and disillusionment to comrades abroad and within Korea. In practice, MIM has two points to make in regard to Korea: 1. MIM supports Korean self-determination, particularly against U.S. imperialism. MIM will not support a two countries policy in regard to Korea. MIM should take care not to refer to South Korea and North Korea as independent republics. The end of the U.S. occupation of Korea and national reunification would be positive steps for Korea in and of themselves. 2. MIM criticizes Kim Il Sung's party for referring to Soviet and Chinese state-capitalism as "socialist countries." Surely the national aspirations of the Korean people cannot have anything to do with the type of society that unleashes the Beijing fascist massacre or an alliance with U.S. imperialism as in the case of Gorbachev. [This article was written before the government changed in Albania. At this time, North Korea still claims to be socialist. 7/24/92] Maoist view on North Korea Maoist Internationalist Movement PO Box 3576 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576 science@mitvma.mit.edu Dialogue with North Korea: Report on a Seminar on "Tension Reduction in Korea" Written in early 1991. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, 1989, 76pp. free This is a collection of documents on the issue of Korean reunification. Most of the pages are selected transcription of a dialogue of Amerikan imperialists with officials from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Amerikan side is represented by the State Department, the CIA, military officers, some scholars, bourgeois think tank representatives and other intelligence officers. During the dialogue, the Amerikan liberals contradict the Amerikan conservatives on finer points of how to oppress Korea best. The situation in Korea today is hard for Amerikans to relate to. Korea is still fighting off colonial rule, Amerikan rule that is. If the Amerikan South had had a civil war with the North and the British landed troops to "protect" the South, that would be analogous to what is happening in Korea to this day. As one might expect, some U.S. citizens would oppose the regime in the South for upholding slavery. Others would be outraged by the Southern regime's traitorous relations with the British. In Korea there is a communist movement dating back to at least the 1920s. There is also a strong movement opposing Japanese and then U.S. colonialism. The United States has 30,000 troops and thousands of nuclear weapons stationed in southern Korea. Still DPRK officials take a very moderate stance in regard to the U.S. occupation. They report they are willing to reposition their troops away from the southern part of Korea and cut the number of troops in tandem with the fascist regime in the South, so that the two sides end up with 100,000 troops or fewer. What is interesting about the dialogue is that the U.S. imperialists had used the Cold War as an excuse for 40 years to push for a divided Korea. Now the imperialists use the end of the Cold War as an excuse to dominate Korea. "AMERICAN: In view of your confidence in early reunification I wonder how you account for the success of the Republic of Korea in improving its relations with your traditional allies -- not only the Soviet Union, where there have been very important steps in economic cooperation, but also Czechoslovakia and Hungary--the establishment of diplomatic relations--political relations--even with the PRC. Don't you find your country runs the risk of being outflanked by the South through its own initiatives...?" (p. 25) The DPRK retort is as revealing: "Our socialist neighbors have had the opportunity to make clear to us. . . that they have supported and will support the reunification of our country continuously. We trust them. We trust their words." (Ibid.) The DPRK is too kind to the Deng Xiaoping fascists and Gorbachev capitalists. The Amerikan side replied by implying the danger of Japan without mentioning Japan. Amerika wants it to appear that the United States is Korea's friend while Japan wants to keep its competitor Korea divided. (p. 25-6) In another exchange, the Amerikans laid it on thick with capitalist triumph dogma: "It's pretty much conceded that the socialist economies are in a state of collapse--that socialism doesn't work. The Soviet Union, most of eastern Europe and China illustrate the essential bankruptcy of socialist systems. . . . The real example for your country is to be seen in the neighboring countries of the Pacific Basin--Taiwan, Hong Kong, though special circumstances prevail there, the ASEAN countries, notably Thailand, Indonesia, even to a limited extent the Philippines and of course the ROK itself, which offers great promise. . . . How do you conceive of succeeding by maintaining what you call national independence while others around you are abandoning a system that is essentially bankrupt?" (p. 31) This is a very popular argument not just among Amerikans in Korea. It carries heavy weight with the Chinese masses, intellectuals in particular. MIM will address the argument above in future essays. In conclusion, one gathers from this book that the DPRK says, "'if we are all going in the same direction, toward confederation, rather than toward legitimizing two Koreas,'" "'you will find us very flexible.'" (p. 66) The DPRK has also given up on seeing students and labor launch a revolution in the southern region. They say the economic development of the southern region makes revolution impossible. (Ibid.) --mc5 Written August 1991 Maoist Internationalist Movement science@mitvma.mit.edu South Korea: Dissent Within the Economic Miracle by George E. Ogle London: Zed Books, 1990, 184 pp. With a description of the economic and organizing conditions of the Korean workers in the South, this book is a great reminder of what the international proletariat really is. To be sure, the author is a Christian missionary with a Ph.D. in sociology, who wishes for bourgeois democracy for workers in Korea. Yet, compared with innumerable imperialist "Left" analyses of organizing white labor, South Korea comes much closer to achieving an internationalist analysis. >From experience living in Korea over 14 years and from organizing Korean workers, Ogle is aware of the real exploitation and superexploitation of the Korean workers. Amerikan labor organizers can get something to compare their experience with by reading South Korea. Imperialism The conditions of Korean workers largely stem from the international situation. In 1905, the U.S. Secretary of War, William Howard Taft made a deal with Japan to allow the Japanese occupation of Korea in exchange for Japanese non-interference in U.S. rule in the Philippines. (p. 2) During the Japanese occupation, Korea developed so that by 1944 20% of its formerly agricultural labor force had become involved in industrial undertakings. (p. 8) With the ouster of the Japanese imperialists in 1945, the Soviet-backed forces moved into what is now referred to as North Korea and refrained from occupying southern Korea. Instead, in the South, Koreans rose up to govern themselves, establishing "people's committees" and a "People's Republic." (p. 7) This republic lasted only a few days because the Amerikans landed and established their own rule of law-- the definition of colonialism. Among the laws the United States implemented were laws concerning recognition of unions. Chun Pyung, the country's largest union federation possibly representing a majority of Korean workers did not recognize the Amerikan law, but employers and their puppet unions did. More importantly, the law unleashed employer thugs on the Chun Pyung and destroyed it. (pp. 8-10) >From that time onward phony unions represented the workers in Korea until the late 1980s. Attempts to form independent unions have always met violence from the state and capitalist-hired thugs in Korea. With 30,000 troops in Korea to this day, the United States helps to maintain a regime oppressing workers for the benefit of South Korean capitalists and Amerikans. For example, on May 17, 1980, General Chun Doo Hwan declared martial law. The next day, paramilitary forces massacred dozens of students staging demonstrations against martial law. When citizens rallied to the students' side, paratroops killed hundreds more, leaving at least 500 dead in the Kwangju massacre. In response, the masses rose up and drove the army out of the city and took control for five days. In those five days, the United States turned down Kwangju's request for help. Instead, the U.S. military command supported and possibly directed the military massacre of hundreds of people in the Kwangju uprising. Scores more were killed when the army retook Kwangju. (pp. 95-7) Dealing with Japanese imperialism before World War II and after World War II when it traded places with Japanese occupiers, establishing their own colonial laws, and aiding in the violent suppression of Korean workers and students in 1945 and 1980, the U.S. imperialists have many blood debts to the Korean people without counting the Korean War. Corrupt Amerikan union The Korean case also demonstrates the basic unity between U.S. imperialists and the white working class. Korean garment workers organizing a real union in the 1970s gave up a martyr in the struggle and gained national support in Korea, but failed to move the AFL-CIO. When police moved to close down the garment union in 1971, the AFL-CIO failed to back the workers. As a result, twenty-one Korean workers took over the AFL-CIO office and held its director hostage while issuing demands for independent unions. (p. 103) Ogle points out that this is not an isolated occurrence. Throughout their struggles, the Korean people have received little to no solidarity from workers or other forces in the United States. The AFL-CIO only stands out in this lack of solidarity because it is the largest labor organization in the United States. Ogle sums up the AFL-CIO role this way: "The AFL-CIO established its Asia-American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI) in Seoul in 1971. For the next sixteen years it cooperated actively with the KCIA-appointed leaders of the FKTU [the federation of phony unions in southern Korea-- MC5]. It provided thousands of United States AID dollars to the FKTU. Never was it recorded, however, that the ICFTU or AAFLI stood with the workers or unions against oppression. In the 1970Us when the women workers at Dongil Textile were being beaten and humiliated, they were silent. In the early 1980's when the male unionists were being thrown in prison or beaten by the kusadae, not a word was heard from international unions. Workers in Korea know little about ICFTU, and have come to believe that AAFLI is an agent of the American government, not a legitimate union operation at all." (p. 175) How right those Korean workers are! The AFL-CIO is allied with the U.S. imperialists and abroad they are interchangeable in representing the interests of U.S. empire. To have a successful movement, the Korean workers would be right not to count on the AFL-CIO or other white worker organizations for support. In the United States, some "Leftists" would say that the AFL-CIO position is simply that of its corrupt leadership and not that of Amerikan workers. However, MIM notes that the Amerikan workers never oust their leaders despite various outrages commited around the world. This leaves the "Leftists" in the position of saying the Amerikan workers lack class consciousness which will come about under the correct leadership. Meanwhile, in Korea, despite having four different kinds of paramilitary and military forces to oppose, despite the regime's torture and killings of activists, labor activists rise up not just to replace their union leaders but to organize entirely new unions to replace the corrupt and phony unions. The reason for the different response of the Korean and Amerikan workers in the class struggle must be sought in material conditions, not union leadership. Use of violence In the United States, one sign of the alliance between the Amerikan workers and the U.S. imperialists is that rarely do labor organizers face violence from the state or end up in jail. Such conflict is the exception not the rule. Instead, Amerikan labor and the U.S. imperialists negotiate their positions like the true partners they are. Of course, just as when capitalists negotiate with capitalists, there will be tiffs. Capitalists may end purchase and supply contracts with each other; they may stipulate conditions necessary for doing business at all. They may play rough in a million ways, but they will not generally torture, kill or imprison each other. Unlike the situation of white workers in the United States, the state and employers in Korea regularly deploy violence against workers. In addition to the use of thugs by employers to break unions, protests and strikes, there is also the government's Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA), which carries off suspected organizers for torture, blackmail and sometimes bribery. Local police also work closely with employers to physically break the back of the labor movement, not to mention the army when the oppressorsU control breaks down more completely. Conditions of work The main reason the Amerikan state does not come down much on white workers is that the white workers are neither superexploited nor exploited in general. The white workers don't have many complaints and see themselves in essential unity with their employers. In contrast, the state in Korea is constantly called on to back the exploitation and superexploitation of Korean workers. The Korean workers of today face long hours for low pay. While Amerikan workers were averaging 35 or 36 hours of work a week, Korean workers were organizing for the privilege of having a 44 hour work week. Under Japanese occupation, the Korean workers existed in virtual slavery with Japanese police backing up Japanese employers in the workplace. (p. 3) Today there is perhaps more choice, but the conditions are often still reminiscent of what Karl Marx knew of workers in the Industrial Revolution in Europe. An example is the Pico Products, Inc., which is a U.S. company that operated in Korea. It paid workers $6.20 a day. When a union formed, it simply left the country without informing any Koreans, even in management. Since Pico did not pay any of its debts including its last month's pay to workers, Korean workers are now struggling to have this issue settled in court (p. 173) and there is a small solidarity movement in the United States on behalf of the Pico workers. Conclusion Mired in give-me-a-piece-of-the-pie imperialist white chauvinism, the Amerikan pro-"labor" "Left" would do well to read this book. Information in South Korea on the U.S. foreign policy role, U.S. multinational corporations, the pathbreaking role of women labor organizers, the strikes and independent union movements, the student movement, the established dissident movement, the history of work conditions, the continued existence of fascism after the supposed arrival of democracy in 1987 and the rapid industrial development of the Korean economy all make possible a knowledge of the Korean segment of the international proletariat. MIM should distribute this book to fill a large hole in MIM's repertoire. -MC5 _____________________________________________________________ If you had been reading MIM Notes, the newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, you would know all this already. Subscriptions: Send $12 for 12 issues of MIM Notes MIM Distributors PO Box 3576 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576 Make checks out to "ABS" or send cash.