Log in

View Full Version : The Korean Anarchist Movement



Искра
31st October 2009, 18:05
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/korea.html


The Korean anarchist Movement

A talk by Alan MacSimoin to the WSM Dublin branch in September 1991



In the 2,000 years of Korean history there arose movements fighting for peasants rights and for national independence. Within these movements there were tendencies that may be seen as forerunners of modern anarchism, in the same way as we might view the Diggers in the English revolution.
In 1894 Japan invaded, under the pretext of protecting Korea from China. The struggle for national independance became central to all radical political activity.
The modern anarchist movement in Korea began to take form among the exiles who fled to China after the 1919 independence struggle, and students & workers who went to Japan. This struggle, the 3.1 Movement within which anarchists were prominent, involved 2 million people; 1,500 demonstrations were held; 7,500 were killed; 16,000 wounded and more than 700 homes and 47 churches destroyed.
In the period up to the close of World War II the Korean Anarchist Federation has identified three stages.
The first stage covered the first half of the 1920s and is described by the KAF as the gestation period.
In the early years of this century as the Japanese ruling class started their imperialist drive into other Asian countries they also ruthlessly cracked down on any opposition at home. Japanese anarchists were to the forefront in anti-imperialist agitation. In 1910 Kotoku Shusui, a leading Japanese anarchist, was executed for treason. The Commoners Newspaper was rallying opposition to the Russia-Japan war and to the occupation of Korea. With the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the rice riot of 1918 and the mass uprising in Korea in 1919, the Japanese ruling class was worried.
Following the bloody suppression of the 3.1 Movement and the rise in the level of class struggle in Japan itself, the Japanese bosses blamed anarchists and Koreans for the Tokyo earthquake of 1923. More than 6,000 Korean workers in Japan were hunted down with clubs and bamboo spears. All known Japanese and Korean anarchists were arrested. Park Yeol and his wife Kaneko Fumiko, Korean anarchists, veterans of the independence struggle and organisers of the Tokyo "Black Workers Society", were sentenced to death. Many others were jailed. . The charge of causing an earthquake may have been a bit embarrassing to sections of the ruling class so the sentences were commuted to life in prison. Kaneko died in jail and Park was not released until the end of WWll. Many of the Koreans jailed in what became known as "the High Treason case" went on to become leading activists in the anarchist movement in their own country.
The Korean Anarchist Federation in China was formed in April 1924. and published the "Korean Revolution Manifesto". It was militantly anti-imperialist "we declare that the burglar politics of Japan is the enemy for our nation's existence and that it is our proper right to overthrow the imperialist Japan by a revolutionary means". It went on to stress the to do more than merely exchange rulers, pointing out the difference between a political revolution and a social revolution. It had no doubts about the role of anarchists, it laid emphasis on the leading role of the anarchists in a revolutionary situation. The Federation began to produce papers like Recapture and Justice Bulletin.
By 1928 the spread of libertarian politics allowed the Korean Anarchists to organise the Eastern Anarchist Federation with comrades from China, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan - which published a bulletin, Dong-Bang (The East). The "Manifesto" was adopted by the Eastern Federation as its formal programme.
The second stage which covered the years 1925-30 was dominated by the organisation of the movement. Armed with the theory of anarchist revolution set out in the "Manifesto" and practical experiences drawn from the 3.1 movement, the workers organisations in Japan and "the High Treason case" groups were organised in Seoul, Taegu, Pyongyang and other areas. By November 1929 there had been a huge growth and the Korean Anarchist Communist Federation was formed as a national organisation. As part of the anti Japanese resistance it was a totally underground body. This should not lead anyone into thinking that it was small or lacking in widespread support.
To give some idea of how the movement had grown I want to look at how things had progressed since the early 1920s. In Kiho province the daily newspaper Dong-a Ilbo reported in October 1925 that ten members of the League of Black Flag had been jailed for one year each. The following year the same paper reported that five young workers were jailed for putting out a manifesto very similar in style and content to the "Korean Revolution Manifesto". In 1929 Dong -a Ilbo tells of a secret society of anarchists organised by Lee Eun-Song which had one hundred members in the town of Icheon in Kwangwon province. In that year it transpired that the entire membership of the Chunju Artists Movement Society were all anarchists, such were the names and fronts used to throw the Japanese police off the scent. In response to this the death penalty was brought in for organising societies with the aom of "changing the national structure".
In Taegu a League of Truth and Fraternity was set up in 1925 by exiles who returned from Japan. The Revolutionists League also came into being and both were in regular contact with the Tokyo Black Youth Society. I have also come across anarchist grou s in Anui, Mesan, the Changwon Black Friend League, the Jeju Island Mutual Aid group. The last mentioned used their remoteness from central government to organise co-ops of farmers and artisans, even a peasants' band. Needless to say the organisers quickly found they were not that remote and saw the inside of a prison cell.
In Kwanseo and Kwanbul province I have found mention of at least eight more groups. Almost all the groups around the country were involved in a mixture of producing leaflets & papers, oranising trade unions and engaging in resistance to the occupation.
By this time we know that most areas could boast of an active group. There were also organisations in Manchuria and amongst exiles in China and Japan.
The next stage was the fighting period which ran up to 1945.
Among the two million Koreans in Manchuria the KAF in Manchuria was able to sink deep roots immediately after its formation in 1929. The Federation's main organiser, Kim Jong-Jin, drew up a plan which he put to the anti-Japanese guerillas. It covered voluntary collectives for farmers, free education up to age 18 with adult education for those older and arms training for all responsible adults. Discussions followed and eventually an anarchist plan was agree which was described as being "according to the free federation principle based upon the spontaneous free will of man".
The difficulty that was not really addressed was how to deal with the Stalinists who were also organising in this region and were slandering the anarchists and others as "tyrants". The young anarchists around Yu-Rim wanted to fight ideology with ideology and demonstrate the superiority of their ideas. The older anti-Japanese guerillas around Kim Jwa-Jin (sometimes called the Korean Makhno) thought it was enough to state their support for anarchism but that they could ignore the Stalinists until national independence was won because only then would real politics come to the forefront. Not a lot different from the stages theory put forward by elements in Sinn Fein!
By August 1929 the anarchists had formed an administration in Shinmin (one of the three Manchurian provinces). Whether this was a government is still a point of contention among anarchists. Organised as the Korean People's Association in Manchuria it declared its aim as "an independent self-governing cooperative system of the Korean people who assembled their full power to save our nation by struggling against Japan". The structure was federal going from village meetings to district and area conferences. The general association was composed of delegates from the districts and areas.
The general association set up executive departments to deal with agriculture, education, propaganda, finance, military affairs, social health, youth and general affairs. The staff of the departments received no more than the average wage.
We would expect that the organisation would start at village level and then federate upwards. However the EAPM believed that the war situation made this impossible to apply the principle immediately. In the interim they appointed the staffs and appointed them from the top down. Organisation and propaganda teams were then sent out to agitate for support and for the creation of village assemblies and committees. In one village a rice mill capable of milling over 1 million bushels was built to allow the local co-op to break from reliance on merchants. Seemingly all these teams reported a good response and were made welcome wherever they went.
The local administration of the anti-Japanese fighters in Shimin voluntarily dissolved itself and lent its support to KAPM. As the anarchists grew in numbers and support the Stalinists and the pro-Japanese elements in manchuria felt their own power bases threatened.
On January 20th the anarchist general Kim Jwa-Jin was assassinated while doing repair work on the rice mill I just mentioned. The killer escaped but his handler was caught and executed.
At a meeting in June in Peking of the KAFC it was decided to divert all resources outside Korea itself to Manchuria and most KAFC members moved to the anarchist zone in northern Manchuria. It should be noted that women comrades were active as agitators and arms smugglers.
From late 1930 onwards the Japanese were attacking in waves from the South and thestalinists, supported by the USSR, from the North. In early 1931 the stalinists sentassassination and kidnapping teams into the anarchist zone to murder leading activists. They believed that if they wiped out the KAFM the KAPM would wither and die. By the summer of1991 many leading anarchists were dead and the war on two fronts was devastating the region. It was decided to go underground. Anarchist Shimin was no more.
There is much more to be said about activity in China and Japan as well as in Korea bothin the years up to the close of the second world war, about their attitude towards thepartition of their country, and about their position today. It would take too much time to deal with it all. What should be very clear is that anarchism in Asia has a veryreal history. We need more information to properly assess its political development,achievements and failings. In the meantime we can draw strength from the knowledgethat anarchism was, and can be again, a major force in the region.
The main source I have used in Ha Ki-Rak's A History of the Korean Anarchist Movementwhich was published in 1986 by the Korean Anarchist Federation. Apart from beingpoorly translated and chronologically confusing, it is written from the perspective of the more nationalist and reformist tendency in the Korean movement.

scarletghoul
31st October 2009, 18:28
Thanks for posting this; this movement really interests and inspires me. (Though the constant stuff about evil Stalinists can get annoying... I find it difficult to believe that the Chinese Communists would collaborate with the Japanese Empire to crush an Anarchist stronghold. Any more information and sources on this would be pretty cool.)

Out of interest, what are some Anarchists' opinions on the National Liberation flavour of Korean Anarchism? I remember there was a big debate on this in the Anarchist usergroup a year ago, when I was in there. It seems pretty clear to me that the anti-imperialist nationalism resulted in a huge boost of support for the Anarchists.

Искра
31st October 2009, 19:03
Biographies connected to this thread:



Shūsui Kōtoku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%ABsui_K%C5%8Dtoku)
Park Yeol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Yeol)
Fumiko Kaneko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumiko_Kaneko)
Kim Jwa-jin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jwa-jin)(Korean Makhno)



Originally Posted by scarletghoul:
Out of interest, what are some Anarchists' opinions on the National Liberation flavour of Korean Anarchism? I remember there was a big debate on this in the Anarchist usergroup a year ago, when I was in there. It seems pretty clear to me that the anti-imperialist nationalism resulted in a huge boost of support for the Anarchists.
This text is not enough information for me to judge Korean anarchist movement and it's involvement in national liberation. Never the less, anarchist movements are always anti-imperialist, but we don't put emphasise on nation but on class.

bailey_187
31st October 2009, 21:57
Another Anarchist revolution thwarted by evil Leninists at the last moment

Искра
31st October 2009, 23:32
Another Anarchist revolution thwarted by evil Leninists at the last moment
If you don't have anything intelligent to say - shut up.

And yeah this was another revolution of working class (since there's no such thing as "the anarchist revolution) thwarted by Stalinist imperialism.

ls
31st October 2009, 23:44
From the limited text there, it seems rather odd the way they isolated themselves into a few provinces then retreated into one, I think that definitely makes way for nationalism to become more easily developed in a revolutionary wave, not that they didn't have nationalistic feelings beforehand, but still.

Искра
1st November 2009, 00:02
This is just one text which is part of larger book. I posted it here because I felt that its important to post historical article about anarchism in that part of the World.
I would appreciate something more if somebody have :)

Also, I would appreciate if this doesn't become another tendency war, so if you don't have anything intelligent which could make this discussion better etc. don't post.

bailey_187
1st November 2009, 13:24
If you don't have anything intelligent to say - shut up.
.

I will now leave this thread.

But dont act like you dont come into threads about actual Socialist states and actual Revolutions saying nonsense like "state capitalism"

Искра
1st November 2009, 13:48
I will now leave this thread.

But dont act like you dont come into threads about actual Socialist states and actual Revolutions saying nonsense like "state capitalism"
Well that's an anarchist point of view. (Which is truth.)
If you want to say something against this text post here your Stalinists sources so we will see.

red cat
1st November 2009, 15:02
Well that's an anarchist point of view. (Which is truth.)

Do you mean that is truly the anarchist point of view indeed, or that point of view is true because anarchists believe in it?

x359594
1st November 2009, 19:41
...it seems rather odd the way they isolated themselves into a few provinces then retreated into one...

According to Korean scholars such as Ahn Byung-jun (he's an economist) Korean politics is characterized by organizations based on provinces with their particular dialects, familial relationships and support networks. Provinces themselves have special relationships with each other and form coalitions against other provinces as well. It's not something well known in Western discourse about Korea outside of specialists in the subject.

ls
1st November 2009, 19:50
According to Korean scholars such as Ahn Byung-jun (he's an economist) Korean politics is characterized by organizations based on provinces with their particular dialects, familial relationships and support networks. Provinces themselves have special relationships with each other and form coalitions against other provinces as well. It's not something well known in Western discourse about Korea outside of specialists in the subject.

I see a lot of shit about Korean culture actually, it's been discussed before that north and south Koreans are not inclined to be homosexual thanks to confucianism, so it barely exists.

So yeah, I think this argument is complete garbage just like that one.

The only way a revolution can work is by spreading, the anarchists did not do that.

Искра
1st November 2009, 19:51
The only way a revolution can work is by spreading, the anarchists did not do that.
Well you can't conclude this form this text. Since you don't know in what kind of situations were they.

ls
1st November 2009, 19:53
Well you can't conclude this form this text. Since you don't know in what kind of situations were they.

I'm not saying I know "all about" the Korean anarchist movement, but I have read at least one article on it before on infoshop I think, it was quite engrained with nationalism/regionalism, which is not a good thing, it also isn't a "cultural" thing.

It makes sense to me that it was a highly contributing factor as to why the revolutionary wave stagnated.

Искра
1st November 2009, 20:00
Of course, I'm not advocating nationalism or regionalism, but maybe anarchist movement there was only in one region because people in other region had other experiences.
For example look at Spain in 1936. Barcelona and South.

Devrim
1st November 2009, 21:50
Wasn't the Korean anarchist movement basically a nationalist movement with a little bit of anarchist covering?

Devrim

Pogue
1st November 2009, 21:51
Wasn't the Korean anarchist movement basically a nationalist movement with a little bit of anarchist covering.

Devrim

Is that an argument, or a statement? Because normally when people ask a question they use a question mark, but when they make a statement, they don't say 'Wasn't'.

Devrim
1st November 2009, 21:58
Is that an argument, or a statement? Because normally when people ask a question they use a question mark, but when they make a statement, they don't say 'Wasn't'.

A question, I have now edited the typo.

That is the impression that I am under. I don't know that much about Korea, but it is what I have been told by Korean communists, and what little I have read agrees with it.

Devrim

x359594
2nd November 2009, 01:54
I see a lot of shit about Korean culture actually, it's been discussed before that north and south Koreans are not inclined to be homosexual thanks to confucianism, so it barely exists...I think this argument is complete garbage just like that one....

It's not an argument comrade, it's an empirical description of an historical phenomena. For example, factional alliances within the DEP and GOP are based on province of origin as can be seen in reportage about the activities of the National Assembly found in the Korean press and TV news.

That said, it's certainly a major defect in the Korean anarchist movement that it failed to overcome this regressive pattern.

scarletghoul
2nd November 2009, 02:38
Wasn't the Korean anarchist movement basically a nationalist movement with a little bit of anarchist covering?

Devrim
Sort of. There were genuine Anarchist principles and stuff, but the movement was a definite part of the wider Korean national liberation movement. For example, Kim Jwa-Jin is officially respected in both North and South Korea as a patriot and anti-Japanese freedom fighter, but not so much as an Anarchist, for obvious reasons. Some of the Korean Anarchists later went on to support North Korea too, I guess because it is socialist and also maybe because it was the more independant half of Korea. Still they did have the Anarchist longing for real freedom and Shinmin was certainly organised in a 'libertarian' way.

So definately it was part of the Korean national liberation movement. Nationalist sentiment is to be expected in popular movements of oppressed countries, especially in a situation as brutal as the one Korea was in. To reject any sense of national liberation in such a situation would totally alienate the movement from the people and from the dynamic of history. Still, some Anarchists will be horrified at this, and say that the movement wasn't truly anarchist... And there is some truth in that, as far as every successful Anarchist movement is not truly anarchist (Spain and Ukraine Anarchists used a lot of coercion and set up state apparatus, as did Shinmin. Without using statist coercion, without abandoning true anarchism, no revolution can succeed :p).

So to summerise my opinion on this: It was a great and inspiring socialist and anti-imperialist movement. Whether you call it truly anarchist or whatever I don't care, because it was awesome.

chimx
2nd November 2009, 06:05
If you don't have anything intelligent to say - shut up.

Practice what you preach and erase this thread. It is devoid of intelligence. Your assinine article completely lacks sources. As a former anarchist and student of Korean history, I often came across articles like the one you posted and every time it is the same bullshit about anarchists being heavily involved with the March First movement, which is not corroborated in any actual history books. The truth of the matter is that like the Paris Commune, the Spanish Civil War, and the Russian Revolution, anarchists like to over-state their importance and pretend that socialists, communists, and even nationalist liberals were anarchists. It's a farce.

Provide legitimate sources, stop posting pretend history.

Devrim
2nd November 2009, 10:39
Sort of. There were genuine Anarchist principles and stuff, but the movement was a definite part of the wider Korean national liberation movement. For example, Kim Jwa-Jin is officially respected in both North and South Korea as a patriot and anti-Japanese freedom fighter, but not so much as an Anarchist, for obvious reasons. Some of the Korean Anarchists later went on to support North Korea too, I guess because it is socialist and also maybe because it was the more independant half of Korea. Still they did have the Anarchist longing for real freedom and Shinmin was certainly organised in a 'libertarian' way.

So definately it was part of the Korean national liberation movement. Nationalist sentiment is to be expected in popular movements of oppressed countries, especially in a situation as brutal as the one Korea was in. To reject any sense of national liberation in such a situation would totally alienate the movement from the people and from the dynamic of history. Still, some Anarchists will be horrified at this, and say that the movement wasn't truly anarchist... And there is some truth in that, as far as every successful Anarchist movement is not truly anarchist (Spain and Ukraine Anarchists used a lot of coercion and set up state apparatus, as did Shinmin. Without using statist coercion, without abandoning true anarchism, no revolution can succeed :p).

So to summerise my opinion on this: It was a great and inspiring socialist and anti-imperialist movement. Whether you call it truly anarchist or whatever I don't care, because it was awesome.

I think the fact that Maoists are whole heartedly endorsing it shows what sort of a movement it must have been.

Devrim

Искра
2nd November 2009, 10:43
I personally think that we know a little about the movement from this text.
Thing I don't like about Koran anarchism (from what I read in this article and on the Wikipeida) is that it was closely connected with rise of Korean nationalism. I find that quite reactionary. Also Park Yeol, who joined North Korean Communist Party is an idiot.

And chimx I posted this article because topic is interesting, at least to me.
I would like if someone has some better texts on this subject. This was only one I could find so I posted it here. If you have better sources be my guest, you'll make me a favour.

118
2nd November 2009, 11:08
An article from Anarkismo admits that the anarchists were nationalists:

Korean anarchist independence fighters were essentially nationalists. John Crump, a late British socialist, once described them as ``something of a shock’’ and ``atypical’’ in his paper titled ``Anarchism and Nationalism in East Asia.’’

But Kim argues that anarchism and nationalism were compatible, especially in the case of Korea, the sole place to develop anarchist ideas while suffering under colonial forces. Specific historical conditions need to be considered, he writes. ``If Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin saw their lands fall under colonialism, they too would have chosen anarchism as a weapon to liberate their people,’’ Kim writes, referring to the founding fathers of anarchism.

another interesting comment:

I lived in S. Korea for awhile in the mid-1990s and met people who knew Ha Ki-rak. They described a 1987 Anarchist Conference in Seoul going on at the same time that as many as 1 million protestors were out on the streets of Seoul and other cities fighting the cops in demos against the military dictatorship. Ha Ki-rak and his comrades didn't agree with the student and worker protestors, so refused to take part. The protests grew larger and larger and by the summer of 1987, with most of the economy paralyzed with strikes, they toppled the Chun Do Hwan regime and forced him to throw out the concession of popular elections. Unfortunately, most people went for the bait and the anti-dictatorship movement fizzled out.

At that 1987 Anarchist Conference, representative came from the U.S.--I think one or two people who started Bound Together were there--and the U.K. Both the American and the Brit told me that the conference was so rigid and boring that they spent their entire time in Seoul watching the street fighting from the sidelines. They said it was fantastic and they had never seen more miltant protestors in their lives.

Even the Korean radicals I met in Seoul said that were NOT nationalists and that the tradition of Ha Ki-rak was Anarchist in name only. And the only reason for that was during the Japanese occupation, they advocated propaganda by deed.

The radicals I knew were discovering the Situationists, Council Communists, Russian Anarchists and other traditions that censorship--remember, this before the internet--had prevently them from learning about. They called Ha Ki-rak and his Korean Federation of Anarchist nationalist wingnuts. After reading an English translation of the history of the KAF and how they opposed the 1946 nationwide South Korean General Strike, that began with radical railroad workers in Taegu, I could only agree with my contemporary Korean comrades. The KAF even went so far as to call for Koreans to "work together" with the occupying U.S. Army to end labor strife and to collectively work with the American for "peace" and to "rebuild their country." Nationalists aren't anarchist and they certainly aren't revolutionaries.

Искра
2nd November 2009, 11:10
Could you just give me a link to article?

ls
2nd November 2009, 11:20
Could you just give me a link to article?

I googled some of the words comrade Eternal posted:

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/4797

A good read for sure.

118
2nd November 2009, 11:21
anarkismo.net/article/4797

Some interesting things:

South Korea’s school textbooks have presented prominent independence fighter Shin Chae-ho (1880-1936), a proclaimed anarchist, to be a hero. Since 2000, others such as Yu Rim (1894-1961), Park Ryol (1902-1972) and Yu Cha-myong (1891-1985) have been designated independence activists of the month by the Ministry of Patriots and Veteran Affairs

Oh! Anarchist national independence heroes, honored by the State! :laugh:

Yu Rim’s career was what pure anarchists could call compromising, revisionist and degenerative, as he became an elected politician after the Korean War.

:lol:

Искра
2nd November 2009, 11:22
All aboard! Anarchism's next stop -> liberal nationalist station, followed by national unity for peace and opposition to general strikes.
This is not what's anarchism about.
As anarcho-syndicalist, I'm certainly not against general strike.
These Korean "anarchists", as I can see from your text + mine, were reactionaries and nationalists.

Искра
2nd November 2009, 11:26
anarkismo.net/article/4797

Some interesting things:

South Korea’s school textbooks have presented prominent independence fighter Shin Chae-ho (1880-1936), a proclaimed anarchist, to be a hero. Since 2000, others such as Yu Rim (1894-1961), Park Ryol (1902-1972) and Yu Cha-myong (1891-1985) have been designated independence activists of the month by the Ministry of Patriots and Veteran Affairs

Oh! Anarchist national independence heroes, honored by the State! :laugh:

Yu Rim’s career was what pure anarchists could call compromising, revisionist and degenerative, as he became an elected politician after the Korean War.

:lol:
Oh, my gosh... :rolleyes:

118
2nd November 2009, 11:27
Yet, we have an 'anarchist' here (FU) deriding a left communist's views that the Korean anarchist movement was nationalist.

But what else is to be expected when it comes from someone who joined the TA - bombs and loud explosions must be his criteria for assessing revolutionary politics - and that is certainly what the Korean anarchists had.

Forward Union
2nd November 2009, 11:28
Yet, we have an 'anarchist' here (FU) deriding a left communist's views that the Korean anarchist movement was nationalist.

But what else is to be expected when it comes from someone who joined the TA - bombs and loud explosions must be his criteria for assessing revolutionary politics - and that is certainly what the Korean anarchists had.

well they obviously didn''t have enough of them :cool:

But to return to seriousness. The left communist argument that the Korean Anarchists should have in some way broke all connections with the National Liberation movement is politically bankrupt. All it wouldhave lead to is political isolation and immediate military defeat. What it would have achieved however is a level of academic political purity. As someone who want's to see the real overthrow of capitalism, the political purity of a given group or whatever is not enough for me to form a basis of support of opposition. Rather it rests on something more substantial.

The fact that your ideological outlook is completely worthless as a strategy, so detached from all involvement in outside politics, means it's not really worth serous consideration.

Devrim
2nd November 2009, 13:31
well they obviously didn''t have enough of them :cool:

It's a light hearted comment, but communist revolution isn't primarily about guns, it is about class consciousness.


But to return to seriousness. The left communist argument that the Korean Anarchists should have in some way broke all connections with the National Liberation movement is politically bankrupt. All it wouldhave lead to is political isolation and immediate military defeat. What it would have achieved however is a level of academic political purity. As someone who want's to see the real overthrow of capitalism, the political purity of a given group or whatever is not enough for me to form a basis of support of opposition. Rather it rests on something more substantial.

I am not even arguing that they should have 'in some way broke[n] all connections with the National Liberation movement'. I am arguing that they were a completely bourgeois nationalist movement, which anarchists in Europe wouldn't recognise as anarchist in any way.

These were people who supported the occupying American forces in putting down strikes. Now that is what bourgeois nationalists tend to do. We saw the so-called 'left wing' Kurdish nationalists in Iraq shooting sown striking workers on picket lines last year. If you want to you can lay claim to this heritage of strike breaking. I don't think that most anarchists would.


The fact that your ideological outlook is completely worthless as a strategy, so detached from all involvement in outside politics, means it's not really worth serous consideration.

This is only a slightly more erudite criticism than the post with the picture, but well done. At least you are improving.

Devrim

Forward Union
2nd November 2009, 14:26
I am not even arguing that they should have 'in some way broke[n] all connections with the National Liberation movement'. I am arguing that they were a completely bourgeois nationalist movement, which anarchists in Europe wouldn't recognise as anarchist in any way.

Who were a bourgeois nationalist movement, the KAF?


These were people who supported the occupying American forces in putting down strikes. Except that article must be refering to a completely different set of people, as the KAF was all but erradicated by Japense and soviet imperialists by 1930. Whatever called itself the KAF in 1946 would have been a different entity altogether.

And all our traditions have their stains. The Anarcho Syndicalists in the Mexican revolution supported the government, and fought the Zapatistas. Arguably participating in Ethnic clensing in the southern states. Left Communists (on top of a lot of opposition papers) brought out anti NUM propaganda during the miners strikes, etc. Yet it's possible to support these traditions without endorsing everything they ever did.

Искра
2nd November 2009, 14:34
WThe Anarcho Syndicalists in the Mexican revolution supported the government, and fought the Zapatistas. Arguably participating in Ethnic clensing in the southern states. Left Communists (on top of a lot of opposition papers) brought out anti NUM propaganda during the miners strikes, etc.
Sources?

103
2nd November 2009, 15:27
The left communist argument that the Korean Anarchists should have in some way broke all connections with the National Liberation movement is politically bankrupt. Advocating solidarity between Japanese and Korean workers into a unified force against capitalism is totally indispensible to a revolutionary movement. Recognizing that the national bourgeoisie which replaced the occupying force had nothing to offer to the working class is indispensible to a revolutionary platform. Propaganda of the deed like actions against Japanese occupiers or institutions, or guerrilla warfare with peasants as its backers is politically bankrupt and has nothing or little to do with the revolutionary transformation of society. The fact that anarchists were in agreement with Stalinists and other nationalists should point out the bankruptcy of your position. The fact that those ‘anarchists’ are today celebrated by the capitalist state as heroes should point out the bankruptcy of your position. Yes, by not succumbing to the populist anti-Japanese position the communists would have been marginalized, but since when have communists argued their stances on mere popularity? The fact of the matter is that national liberation struggles have nothing to do with the establishment of socialism and frequently crush revolutionary movements or destroy the independence of the working class from their national bourgeoisie. It’s not academic purity, but one of complete practicality and importance: the working class must be separate from the capitalist class and not participate in the wars of the ruling class.


the political purity of a given group or whatever is not enough for me to form a basis of support of opposition. Rather it rests on something more substantial.What, like nationalist anti-imperialism, arguing for national unity, anarchists being elected to government, propaganda of the deed, guerrilla warfare?

~~The organisation which the individual was referring to was probably the Korean Labour Federation for the Promotion of Independence, which was formed by nationalists, and supported by the US. The KLFPI opposed the general strike. Whether other anarchists did, I don’t know. Like Devrim, it wouldn’t surprise me if in the name of national unity they called for the amicable settling of industrial disputes, like Togliatti did when he called for peace in the face of a general strike. When push comes to shove, nationalists and reformists always put their country and ruling class first and the working class second.

scarletghoul
2nd November 2009, 16:09
Advocating solidarity between Japanese and Korean workers into a unified force against capitalism is totally indispensible to a revolutionary movement.The Korean Anarchists did have ties and solidarity with the Japanese Anarchists.

Recognizing that the national bourgeoisie which replaced the occupying force had nothing to offer to the working class is indispensible to a revolutionary platform.
Yes, that's why they supported North Korea instead of South Korea, because (whether you agree or not) the impression to them was that the North was a proletarian regime.

Propaganda of the deed like actions against Japanese occupiers or institutions, or guerrilla warfare with peasants as its backers is politically bankrupt and has nothing or little to do with the revolutionary transformation of society.
Bullshit blud. It's easy for you to sit there with your stupid ultraleftist criticisms of what was actually a pretty successful revolutionary movement, when you clearly don't know too much about it. What, you expect the occupied people not to attack the occupiers? You expect the oppressed peasants to do nothing, because they are of the incorrect social class for your puritanical ultraleftist ideal? pff

The fact that those ‘anarchists’ are today celebrated by the capitalist state as heroes should point out the bankruptcy of your position.
Not really. It's like Martin Luther King is celebrated as a hero in America, despite the fact that he advocated Marxist economics and was becoming increasingly radical before they killed him. The capitalist state will warp the image of a peoples' hero to suit themselves, to impose their ideology on the people. They done it with MLK's peacefulness, and with KJJ's nationalism. It's no way to judge the actual person, let alone the whole movement they came from.

the working class must be separate from the capitalist class and not participate in the wars of the ruling class.
Are you suggesting the Korean Anarchists were fighting for the Korean capitalists? That's clearly not true; for one the system in Shinmin was socialist, and did not benefit the Korean capitalists, and for two much of the Korean ruling class was on the side of the Japanese Empire.

I think the fact that Maoists are whole heartedly endorsing it shows what sort of a movement it must have been.
I wholeheartedly endorse the old Spanish Anarchist movement too :p

I am not even arguing that they should have 'in some way broke[n] all connections with the National Liberation movement'. I am arguing that they were a completely bourgeois nationalist movement, which anarchists in Europe wouldn't recognise as anarchist in any way.
yeah those backwards orientals cant do anything right, how dare they disgrace the advanced banner of a european movement

chimx
2nd November 2009, 16:11
I would like if someone has some better texts on this subject.

there are no better texts on the subject, which leads me to believe the entire subject is a massive exaggeration.

in truth much of the korean communist movement wasn't particularly communist. korea had faced a horrible invasion by japan and national liberation was the primary objective of everybody in korea. many looked towards the nearest super power (russia) and the historical ally of korea (china) for help. communist ideology was a byproduct of this relationship.

Jethro Tull
2nd November 2009, 16:17
I'm not saying I know "all about" the Korean anarchist movement, but I have read at least one article on it before on infoshop I think

Scholarship, RevLeft style! :D

Random Precision
2nd November 2009, 16:19
Offtopic comments split. Forward Union, you are verbally warned for spamming.

ls
2nd November 2009, 17:13
Scholarship, RevLeft style! :D

I wouldn't mind if someone other than you pointed this out, you know, with your western chauvinist perspective and all. Please do us all a favour and gtfo (and if you know so much more about it, which is highly unlikely, demonstrate it).

Honestly, chimx seems to have got it spot on in his last post:


in truth much of the korean communist movement wasn't particularly communist. korea had faced a horrible invasion by japan and national liberation was the primary objective of everybody in korea. many looked towards the nearest super power (russia) and the historical ally of korea (china) for help. communist ideology was a byproduct of this relationship.

Of course, I don't agree on the 'primary objective' part, but the rest of it is correct.

Forward Union
2nd November 2009, 19:48
nevermind

Jethro Tull
3rd November 2009, 05:52
I wouldn't mind if someone other than you pointed this out, you know, with your western chauvinist perspective and all. Please do us all a favour and gtfo (and if you know so much more about it, which is highly unlikely, demonstrate it).

Calm down.

How am I a "western chauvinist"? And I'm not pretending to be an expert on Korean anarchism, especially since I don't even speak Korean.

Devrim
3rd November 2009, 10:20
I wholeheartedly endorse the old Spanish Anarchist movement too :p

Yes that is the one that joined the bourgeois government in 1936, and played its role in the Stalinists massacring revolutionaries in 1937. I am not so surprised.


yeah those backwards orientals cant do anything right, how dare they disgrace the advanced banner of a european movement

It is not to do with them being non-western. It is to do with the movement not having proletarian politics, which might have more than a little to do with the predominately peasant base of those societies at the time, in contrast to anarchism as it appeared in the Latin countries where it was indeed a revolutionary current.

Devrim

Devrim
3rd November 2009, 10:32
Who were a bourgeois nationalist movement, the KAF?

Except that article must be refering to a completely different set of people, as the KAF was all but erradicated by Japense and soviet imperialists by 1930. Whatever called itself the KAF in 1946 would have been a different entity altogether.

As I said I don't know a lot about the Korean movement, but then I don't think anybody in the West does. Maybe Loren Goldner knows something about it as he lived there for four years. I will ask him. I have read a little in the past few days and everything I read just suggests that they were outright nationalists.

And all our traditions have their stains. The Anarcho Syndicalists in the Mexican revolution supported the government, and fought the Zapatistas. Arguably participating in Ethnic clensing in the southern states. Left Communists (on top of a lot of opposition papers) brought out anti NUM propaganda during the miners strikes, etc. Yet it's possible to support these traditions without endorsing everything they ever did.[/QUOTE]

Left communists criticised the NUM in the1984-5 strike as it acted as a barrier to the struggle. They were right to do so. I don't think it really compares with anarchosyndicalists supporting the government.

Devrim

Shin Honyong
3rd November 2009, 22:24
Gusts of Popular Feeling has also a little article on Park Yeol and Kaneko Fumiko: http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2007/02/park-yeol-kaneko-fumiko-and-korean.html

I also know there is an anthology book of Anarchist writings that has some stuff by Shin Chaeho. I forgot the name of it though :\