If a successful communist revolution happened in South Korea it would severely weaken us geopolitical influence in that area. It is also less locked down there as the entirety of the United States military is not there and it would take time for the US to be able to interfere. A revolution would have to be fast though to be successful. Do you think it is possible to use the Internet to radicalize people in South Korea or would someone have to take a risk and physically go there. The birth rate in South Korea is the lowest in the world. Most people are unhappy there so we could theoretically give them an answer to their problems. There would probably be a better chance at succeeding than in the United States right now because south Korea is practically end stage capitalism with the top 30 companies owning 76.9% of gdp. Isn’t this the perfect stage for a revolution according to Marx?
I recommend the Blowback podcast season on Korea. It may be sobering on the state Korea is in. Some things to keep in mind: Korea was colonized/occupied/brutalized by Japan. At some point, the US sort of took over on doing the same thing, through a combination of direct military force and the puppet leader Syngman-Rhee; who lead an extremely repressive government. I don’t remember the exact timeline of things, of when the DPRK was officially formed, but somewhere in there, Kim Il-Sung was organizing for liberation and creating what would become the DPRK. Liberation forces tried to liberate “South Korea”, but got pushed back by US forces (who did lots of civilian killing and destroying infrastructure, not unlike what israel has done in Gaza). The US forces were going to continue on and try to wipe out the liberation forces and probably go on to attack China from there if they could get away with it. However, China stepped in and helped them beat back US occupation forces.
The end result was the split that exists to this day. Note that the designation of “North Korea” and “South Korea” was literally drawn up by US generals on a map. “South Korea” (Occupied Korea) is basically a puppet state of the US, still now, after all of that. That doesn’t mean it has no autonomy at all, but you can bet that if there was wind of political will toward liberation, the US occupier would quickly try to return to the days of Syngman-Rhee and stamp it out violently, if necessary. As it is, though I’m not up to date on the degree of political repression it currently has, it surely has some already. The brutality inflicted on Korea is not that far back in history and there are undoubtedly Koreans who wish for reunification and to be free of occupation. But wanting it and being able to create it are two different things when you have a violent occupying force entrenched there.
If it were as simple as radicalizing some people, Korea would have been liberated decades ago, when the US was taking over on occupying it.
You don’t just magically start a revolution by telling people to revolt over the internet. And you certainly don’t do it by sending some dude to stage an agitational event. It takes dedicated organizing rooted in the masses - the makers of history
“To be successful, insurrection must rely not upon conspiracy and not upon a party, but upon the advanced class. That is the first point. Insurrection must rely upon a revolutionary upsurge of the people. That is the second point. Insurrection must rely upon that turning-point in the history of the growing revolution when the activity of the advanced ranks of the people is at its height, and when the vacillations in the ranks of the enemy and in the ranks of the weak, half-hearted and irresolute friends of the revolution are strongest. That is the third point. And these three conditions for raising the question of insurrection distinguish Marxism from Blanquism.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/sep/13.htm
“We, however, are of the opinion that it is only such mass movements, in which mounting political consciousness and revolutionary activity are openly manifested to all by the working class, that deserve to be called genuinely revolutionary acts and are capable of really encouraging everyone who is fighting for the Russian revolution.
What we see here is not the much-vaunted “individual resistance,” whose only connection with the masses consists of verbal declarations, publication of sentences passed, etc. What we see is genuine resistance on the part of the crowd; and the lack of organisation, unpreparedness and spontaneity of this resistance remind us how unwise it is to exaggerate our revolutionary forces and how criminal it is to neglect the task of steadily improving the organisation and preparedness of this crowd, which is waging an actual struggle before our very eyes.
The only task worthy of a revolutionary is to learn to elaborate, utilize and make our own the material which Russian life furnishes in only too great sufficiency, rather than fire a few shots in order to create pretexts for stimulating the masses, and material for agitation and for political reflection. The Socialist-Revolutionaries cannot find enough praise of the great “agitational” effect of political assassinations, about which there is so much whispering both in the drawing-rooms of the liberals and in the taverns of the common people.
It is nothing to them (since they are free of all narrow dogmas on anything even approximating a definite socialist theory!) to stage a political sensation as a substitute (or, at least, as a supplement) for the political education of the proletariat. We, however, consider that the only events that can have a real and serious “agitational” (stimulating), and not only stimulating but also (and this is far more important) educational, effect are events in which the masses themselves are the actors, events which are born of the sentiments of the masses and not staged “for a special purpose” by one organisation or another.
We believe that even a hundred regicides can never produce so stimulating and educational an effect as this participation of tens of thousands of working people in meetings where their vital interests and the links between politics and these interests are discussed, and as this participation in a struggle, which really rouses ever new and “untapped” sections of the proletariat to greater political consciousness, to a broader revolutionary struggle.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/dec/01.htm
“Proof is provided by the history of the last decade (1904–14), which is most eventful and significant. During these ten years members of these groups have displayed the most helpless, most pitiful, most ludicrous vacillation on serious questions of tactics and organisation, and have shown their utter inability to create trends with roots among the masses.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/09.htm
No not at all
You cannot force a revolution. The ROK is deeply divided and contradictions are sharp, especially under the chaebol, but it’s also colonized by the US Empire. Analysis of conditions in Korea depends on US presence, as well as on the actual conditions of labor organizing on the ground (which is seeing increased tensions due to the intense stratification of society).
I mainly just wanted to know how current class consciousness is in South Korea and if there is even a chance for a revolution there. I don’t know enough which is why I asked
I myself am not Korean, so take this with a grain of salt, but in my opinion, the ROK is so heavily stratified and so intensely anti-communist at a state level because Southern Korea has a vivid class struggle historically. Marxism is not common in the ROK due to anti-communism and the US Empire’s presense, but the history of the Korean people across the peninsula has been one of vivid resistance to colonialism, and in the south especially against dictators like Rhee Syngman, Chun Do-Hwan, etc.
Right now, the US Empire is waning, and the current SocDem president Lee Jae-Myeung is somewhat trying to normalize relations with the PRC after the previous fascist Yoon Seok-Youl dramatically increased tensions with the DPRK and moved towards the US. It’s a bit of a powder keg at the moment, with rising fascism and incel movements alongside rising feminist movements and strong labor union movements.
There’s no vanguard right now, no professional revolutionaries, no consolidated working class organizations, but class struggle is alive and sharp. Even looking at media like Squid Game shows that this is a common sentiment, and is why the brutal crackdowns on leftists are happening. There’s a dialectical relationship between the working class’s level of political advancement and the direct crushing of working class organization at the state and corporate level, the intense crackdowns exist because the working class is increasingly radicalized (though some are going the fascist incel route, and that’s intentional).
I can’t answer when a revolution will happen, but I can say that the Korean working class is more aware of its own conditions than the US Empire’s working class. It’s also bribed by imperialism, and the US Empire’s presense on the peninsula is a constant saber to rattle. It’s complicated.
Do you think they would be willing to do a revolution if things escalate or are they more hoping for a democratic solution still?
Also why are they anti communist when that is the best solution to their current problem?
No way to know. For now, it seems electoralism and strikes are how the Korean working class engages with the chaebol and the state.
You don’t exactly fill up a monopoly meter and get a revolution in the imperial core countries. The crises of capitalism are exported to the periphery until it is no longer physically possible (environmental devastation, political opposition) or there is a logistical/financial breakdown. I’ll try to come back to this later since it deserves to be broken down.
