South Korean Presidential Election
Vote for the DLP!! Oust its reformist leadership!!
South Koreas sixteenth presidential election, due on
December 19, comes amid great uncertainty and anxiety over the future of the
nation and widespread disillusionment over the current government of Kim
Dae-jung.
When Kim Dae-jung won the presidential election five years ago,
edging out the then governing party candidate, Lee Hoi-chang, he had a measure
of backing across the political spectrum. Part of the dominant section of the
bourgeoisie represented by chaebols (business conglomerates) supported him with
the hope that he would bring an end to economic collapse created by the
financial crisis of late 1997. They also hoped that he would drastically reduce
military tensions with the North Korean deformed workers state by
initiating a policy of engagement and opening up of business opportunities
there. And a considerable section of the left in the workers and
so-called peoples movement supported him with hope that he would
guarantee the democratic rights denied by his predecessors and allow political
freedom and trade union rights.
Kim Dae-jung was the first-ever opposition leader to win the
presidency, and touting this so-called historic accomplishment of a peaceful
transition of government with a mandate based on democratic procedures, the new
president declared the launching of a "National Unity Government" during his
inauguration speech, promising to initiate reforms to guarantee true democracy,
economic development and clean and effective government. He also promised that
he would lay the groundwork for national reunification with the North by
drastically reducing military tensions and bringing lasting peace on the Korean
peninsula.
But five years later his administration has proved as bankrupt,
incompetent and corruption-ridden as any in the history of the Republic of
Korea. Due to humiliating losses in a series of by-elections and heavy
defections of his partys members of parliament, his Millennium Democratic
Party (MDP) has become a minority in the 273-seat unicameral National Assembly,
and in the June local body elections suffered the worst-ever landslide defeat
to the opposition Grand National Party. His partys official candidate in
the forthcoming presidential elections, Noh Moo-hyon, a former human rights
lawyer, seemed to have little chance of winning the election.
"Sunshine Policy" clouded over
One of the heaviest blows to his rosy dream of becoming the
"Reunification President" and establishing a prosperous and peaceful Korea came
when U.S. President Bush pronounced North Korea part of the "axis of evil" in
January this year. This pronouncement numbed the country with shock and
disbelief, raising the palpable threat of imminent war and the devastation of a
country that had risen out of the ashes of the Korean War (1950-53), when the
whole peninsula had been laid waste, four million Koreans killed and millions
more left maimed and destitute. Even President Kim himself warned on 5
February: "We should be mindful of the fact that horrendous damage might be
inflicted by another war on the Korean peninsula."
North Koreas alleged admission on 17 October that it had
been developing nuclear arms program in violation of 1994 Geneva Agreement with
the U.S. did nothing to calm the heightened anxiety. With U.S. Army deploying
strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in its bases in South Korea, a nuclear
conflagration loomed as a real possibility. North Korea is one of seven
countries for which the U.S. has contingency plans to attack with its nuclear
arsenal, and any excuse by the U.S. might trigger missile exchanges over the
cease-fire line and incinerate the nearby Seoul metropolitan area of about 24
million people.
This mood was in stark contrast to that of June 2000 when
President Kim visited Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, to hold the
first-ever summit meeting between the leaders of two Koreas. Five decades of
military tension seemed set to ease with a series of reconciliation measures
and even the eventual reunification of the peninsula. The imperialist media
heaped praises over the initiative of President Kim who received the Nobel
Peace Prize that year. With EU imperialists establishing diplomatic relations
with the North to exploit business opportunities and increase their influence
in the region, the Clinton administration had not wanted to be left behind and
sent Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Pyongyang for talks with high
ranking North Korean officialsalso the first-ever visit by high-ranking
American official since the end of the Korean War. President Kims
"Sunshine" engagement policy seemed to shine brightly, leading to the general
amelioration of overall military and diplomatic situation on the Korean
peninsula.
The realization of the "Sunshine policy" would have removed a
major justification for the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. It
would have brought about economic advantage to the North Korean regime and
closer relationships between it and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and EU
member nations.
The inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001, however,
signaled a change in orientation by the US bourgeoisie and a rejection of the
prospect of reconciliation and cooperation between the two Koreas. The right
wing of the U.S. Republican Party was going full-speed ahead to gain the upper
hand on its imperialist rivals, reinforce American military dominance of the
world, and isolate the Chinese deformed workers state.
On the Korean peninsula this required not the "Sunshine policy"
but forcing North Korea to its kneesa return to the imperialists
policy of isolation of North Korea and the destruction of the regime through
famine and economic decline.
A short but bloody naval battle on June 29 between North and South
Korean warships in the Yellow Sea left five South Korean sailors dead and
scores wounded, with an unknown number of casualties on the North Korean side.
This incident was used by the Bush administration to intensify the diplomatic
and economic isolation of North Korea. Washington cancelled a diplomatic visit
to Pyongyang.
Since its independence from the Japanese imperialist subjugation
at the end of World War II, South Korea has been a virtual protectorate of the
U.S., and has seen its successive governments parroting Washingtons
foreign policy. Again this time, President Kim echoed Uncle Sams
criticism of the North, threatening to terminate aid to its economically
beleaguered neighbor.
Reforms deformed
Domestic politics has not been kind to Kims government,
either. A series of so-called reform policies have turned into disastrous
failures, embarrassing "progressive" academia and those political interests
that have argued that Kim is the most liberal, most competent and most
"progressive" president yet. The most glaring revelation of this unrequited
love for Kim by these left fakers involved reform in the health care system.
Korean hospitals used to run lucrative businesses by selling prescription drugs
as well as by attracting bribes from the drug companies. The reform of the
health care system, under the rubric of "separation of medical treatment from
drug prescription", stopped hospitals from selling drugs and, with it, getting
bribesallowing pharmacy businesses to intercept the profits enjoyed by
doctors and hospital owners, putting them under financial strain.
In June 2000 doctors held the first of five strike actions. This
unprecedented collective action by doctors resulted in chaotic disruption of
medical services, patient deaths and the arrest of striking doctors. The
government argued that the reform would drastically reduce peoples
medical bill, the government health budget and drug overuse, all of which had
been induced by doctors over-prescription of medication, which, in turn,
had been motivated by their desire for profit. But later on the government
surrendered to striking doctors and allowed the increase of medical fees by
70%. As a result, according to a researcher of the Korean Institute of Medical
and Social Studies, since the introduction of the measure insurance payouts
have increased by $4 billion and national insurance subscribers have had to
shoulder increased medical expense of $2 billion per year. Next year alone
medical insurance subscription fees will increase a further 9 percent. While
"progressive" academics and political groups first proposed and later defended
the government measures, they never took into account three important facts.
First, most South Korean hospitals are privately owned, thus subjecting them to
ruthless logic of "either make money or go bust". Second, doctors will fight
against any attempt to undermine their social and economic position. Third, for
several years the government had reneged on its legal obligation to contribute
to the medical insurance fund, thus threatening to bankrupt it. "Progressive"
doctors and medical experts vainly hoped that with the introduction of the
reform, the South Korean medical system would emulate the more efficient and
more humane systems established in the Western "welfare states". The fiasco
surrounding the reform dealt a fatal body blow to the credibility of government
policy in general.
Reforms repulsed
Rebelling against the Kim governments utter incompetence in
"reform", there have been massive protests by oppressed layers ever since his
inauguration.
On 25 October 2000, 50,000 farmers occupied major highways around
the country, demanding that the government underwrite the debts they had
incurred as a result of government agricultural policies, and that it guarantee
reasonable prices for farm products. Since the Uruguay Round of trade
negotiations the Korean government has urged farmers to move from rice and
other staples to more lucrative crops and assisted them with low-interest
credits. But with the glut of these government-recommended crops and wholesale
opening of the agricultural market to large-scale international agricultural
producers, a large proportion of the farming population have been ruined. On 13
November this year 150,000 farmers from across the country held a rally in
Seoul protesting against the governments failed policy, which has put
farming into a massive economic decline. According to the governments own
statistics published in 1999, 40 percent of farms couldnt make ends meet
and 50 percent of them were unable to pay debts. Currently, on average every
farm has debt burden amounting to $20,000. And this year the government
announced that its subsidy for rice would be scrapped in line with WTO
regulations. The farmers saw this as an end to domestic agriculture in favor of
foreign imports, and took up opposition to the government with whatever means
they had.
Despite the long-cherished hopes of Kims "critical
supporters" on the left and in the workers movement, his policy of
deregulation, labor flexibility, privatization of state-owned firms and
stepped-up repression has fueled workers resistance against his
government. Most recently, the police stormed Kyong-Hee Hospital and St
Marys Hospital in Seoul on 11 September to arrest more than 500 trade
unionists and university student activists supporting their 112-day-long strike
over wages and conditions. Despite his supporters claim that Kim is all
for workers rights, there have actually been more police raids on
striking workers and mass arrests during his term of office than his
predecessors. According to the KCTU, one of the two national trade union
federations, the number of workers who have been imprisoned over the last five
years stands at over 800.
Only three sons and too many scandals
Corruption has been a feature of this presidency. Kim has been
plagued throughout his term by all sorts of "gates". On 11 November Kim
Hong-gul, the presidents third and youngest son, was fined and sentenced
to two years in jail for bribery and influence-peddling. His sentence was
suspended for three years. He had gone on trial in July this year on charges
that he received about 3.5 billion won ($2.92 million) in illegal funds from a
businessman in exchange for favors. Just ten days earlier, the presidents
second son, Kim Hong-up, received a three and a half year jail sentence and was
fined 1.6 billion won ($1.34 million) for bribery and tax evasion after
receiving 4.8 billion won in illegal payments.
One of the most significant "gates", however, came on 27 October
2000, when Jeong Hyon-joon, president of the venture capital firm Korea Digital
Line, was arrested and indicted on charges that he had paid bribes to Jang
Rae-chan, a former top official with the governments Financial
Supervisory Commission (FSC), following Jeongs large losses on the stock
market. In return, Jang kept quiet about illegal loans Jeong had received,
amounting to an estimated 63.7 billion won ($58 million) from three mutual
savings and finance companies. Jeong had been a major shareholder of three
financial companies and used the loans from these companies to prop up Korea
Digital Line, his bankrupt business. The prosecution alleged that Jeong used
political connections to influence the FSCs decisions. This financial
scandal also implicated four leading members of Kims Millennium
Democratic Party, including Kims first son Kim Hong-il and his right-hand
man Kim Ok-doo.
Contrary to his election promises of clean and efficient
government, president Kims administration has been beset with the
nepotism, cronyism and outright swindles endemic to Third World business and
politics.
Collapse of "communism" and the chaebols lost paradise
However, Kim Dae-jungs political fiasco stems mainly from
the objective factorsultimately the successes of the major imperialist
powers against the non-capitalist bloc of nations. Since the beginning of
1990s, South Korea has lost a very important asset: favors from
imperialism as a bulwark against communism. (See "Korea: Workers Resurgent", 1917 No.15,
1995) With the collapse of the former Soviet Union and its satellites in
Eastern Europe, the menace of "communism" is no more, and therefore neither is
imperialisms strategic need for an economically strong South Korea. The
imperialist bourgeoisies dont need the South Korean government directly
supporting the chaebols, some of which have become strong competitors on the
world market, and they have put economic and political pressure on the South
Korean government to stop its "unfair" support to the chaebols.
The U.S. subjected Seoul to a trade offensive much tougher than
the one directed at Japan, undoubtedly because of Koreas lack of
retaliatory capacity. It hit Korean manufacturers with anti-dumping suits, and
forced them to adopt "voluntary export restraints" on a number of products such
as textiles, garments and steel. Finally the U.S. knocked Korea off the list of
countries eligible for inclusion in the General System of Preferences (GSP),
which grants preferential tariffs to products from Third World countries in
order to assist indigenous producers. Hemmed in on all fronts, Korea saw its
1987 trade surplus of $9.6 billion with the U.S. turn into a deficit of $159
million in 1992. By 1996, the deficit with the U.S. had grown to over $10
billion, and its overall trade deficit hit $21 billion, contributing to the
financial crisis and the ensuing $58 billion IMF bailout program in late 1997.
Theres not so much talk of South Korea as one of the four "tiger"
economies of Asia any more.
And as elsewhere the IMF has demanded that the Kim government
drastically reduce deficits and cut social programs to squeeze the already
deprived masses of working people. Considering this small densely populated
countrys dearth of natural resources and dependence on foreign trade, and
the total destruction of its meager industrial capacity during the Korean War,
it doesnt require much imagination to understand its dependence on
foreign capital and direct state intervention in its economic life. Basically
Koreas infrastructure such as electricity, gas, water, railways and
roading are all built with foreign money. And the development of capitalism in
this context has required the state to play an interventionist coordinating
role. Thus its budget was in chronic deficit, swelling the ledgers of
state-owned companies. When it served the interests of the major imperialist
bourgeoisies, this was encouraged. Now they dont want any of it.
There has been a massive privatization of state-owned
corporations, and in the context of the Korean financial crisis and economic
meltdown in late 1997, it was the foreign capitalists who grabbed the assets at
bargain prices. Nationalist political groups set up a hue and cry against the
Kim governments privatization policy, but their slogan of "no sellout to
foreign capitalists" is reactionary drivel, which chains working-class
resistance to South Korean bourgeois interests. Workers must concentrate their
fighting power on winning job security and better conditions in order to
sustain the struggle and fight back the onslaught of neo-liberal government
policies as well as stop any privatizations. Enduring benefits
for the masses can be achieved only through struggle against all capitalists,
whether Korean or foreign, and can be secured only through socialization of the
economy under the rule of the proletariat.
At the same time the chaebols lost their privileges of direct and
interest-free financial backing from the state-owned banks, a protected
domestic market and seemingly limitless access to the world market. The second
largest chaebol, Daewoo, collapsed in October 1999 under the weight of a $57
billion debt. Starting as a small textile company in 1967, by the time of its
demise it had under its wing 33 domestic companies and 372 overseas
subsidiaries, with an international workforce of 320,000. Its fate epitomizes
the end of heyday of the Korean chaebols and also the end of state-corporate
collusion in pro-U.S. Third World nations.
The spin-off is a massive influx of foreign capital, which is
increasingly taking control of the South Korean economy. Big chunks of major
businesses and about 70 percent of banking capital belong to foreign
capitalists. Samsung Motor is now a subsidiary of Renault; Daewoo Motors is a
subsidiary of General Motors.
Under these objective conditions, Kim Dae-jung havent had
much room to maneuver, implementing one unpopular policy after another under
the rubric of "reforms", eventually losing even the support of his regional
power base, Cholla Province, where he came from.
Indeed the future of the South Korean economy is bleak, with
agricultural products priced out by the world market, labor-intensive
industrial products priced out by Chinese and Southeast Asian rivals, and the
traditional big businesses (chaebols), without their accustomed state support,
losing ground to U.S. and other Western competitors. And the context is a
general world recession and sluggish export volumes.
The so-called downsizing by companies to survive the difficult
times has resulted in massive job cuts since the 1997 financial crisis, and the
resulting mass unemployment has produced a social crisis that reaches every
corner of society. Every year 450,000 new university graduates face a bleak
employment picture. According to one survey, only one in 67 new job applicants
will be employed at the end of this recruiting season.
Pot calling kettle black
All the candidates from the bourgeois parties clamor that
its the Kim Dae-jung government that is responsible for ills of society
and that they are the ones who will be able to put things on the right track.
But none is able to put forward a political program fundamentally different
from that of the current government. Hence the mass indifference to bourgeois
politics. At the local body elections of June this year, only 49 percent of
constituents bothered to vote, and in National Assembly by-elections for
thirteen electoral districts in August this year a paltry 27 percent of the
voters cast a ballot. Of course, presidential elections are held only once in
every five years and the office of president is the very center of the
bourgeois political process. But none of the bourgeois contenders for
presidency inspires popular enthusiasm.
Lee Hoi-chang, the front-runner at the time of writing, and
president of the main opposition Grand National Party, enjoys a measure of
support from the conservative wing of business, the military and the middle
class. But his career in the service of military dictatorships of Park
Jong-hee, Jon Doo-whan and Noh Tae-woo as Supreme Court Justice and most
recently as Prime Minister under President Kim Young-sam have won him a
reputation as a political hack abhorred by the common people. His pro-U.S.,
pro-business and anti-working class policies will only intensify the crisis and
fuel the anger of the masses.
Noh Moo-hyon, the candidate from governing Millennium Democratic
Party, has criticized current government policies and posed as a "new
generation" political leader. Representing the liberal wing of the South Korean
bourgeoisie, he enjoys the support of a section of the workers and
popular movements. But his election platform is little different from that of
Kim Dae-jung five years ago, and in fact fundamentally no different from
Lees. With much reduced mass support for the Millennium Democratic Party
and having to distance himself from the Kim government, Noh has the support of
only about half of his own party, where his critics claim that he should be
replaced by someone who has better chance of reclaiming presidential power.
Some of these critics recently bolted from the party and joined a new political
force called "National Unity 21st Century" under the leadership of an
alternative candidate, Jeong Mong-joon. The split was healed partially at the
eleventh hour by a unity deal, but its yet to be seen if this gimmick
will convince working people to support Noh, the so-called "unity candidate
chosen by the people".
Inevitably there are those such as the Labor Alliance, a group of
former leaders of the "democratic and independent" trade unions, who would
mislead the working class into support for the liberal wing of the bourgeoisie,
and call for a vote to the Noh/Jeong candidacy. This betrayal of the
working-class need for political independence from the parties of the
bourgeoisie is particularly gross in view of Jeongs background. His
father, Jeong Joo-young, as chairman of Hyundai empire, was infamous for his
brutal crackdown on union struggles. Just a thought for those who were killed
and maimed by Jeong seniors goon squads should be enough to make it clear
that this campaign offers nothing to the working class.
The pretender of the working class
Of course, there are candidates claiming to represent working
people in general. Most significant is Kwon Young-gil, president of the
Democratic Labor Party, the bureaucratized political expression of the more
militant wing of trade unionism in South Korea. With a reformist
social-democratic leadership, the DLP has strong ties to the most combative
layer of the working class and among its activists is a concentration of
subjective revolutionaries.
Buoyed by DLPs 8 percent showing in June local body
elections, Kwon portrays himself as a real champion of "progressive" politics
capable of eradicating conservative bourgeois politics. On 7 October the DLP
launched a program typical of the reformist social democracy Lenin gave
critical support to in the 1920s, which would certainly be betrayed by
Kwon if he were to take government office. It called for: the eradication of
political corruption; the elimination of all forms of discrimination based on
region, gender and class; a welfare state providing housing, education and
healthcare funded by taxing the rich and reducing military expenditure; a peace
treaty between North and South Korea, the U.S., and Japan; and reunification of
the fatherland.
Capitalist reunification, with the destruction of collectivized
property in the North, would be a defeat for the proletariat internationally.
Workers in the South would suffer higher unemployment and suppression of wages,
while at the same time bearing the social costs of capitalist reconstruction of
the North (See "The collapse of the DDR",
1917, No.8, 1990). The working class should defend North Korea
against the designs of the South Korean and international bourgeoisies to
plunder the deformed workers state. Reunification is in the interests of
workers and the oppressed masses only through a socialist revolution spreading
throughout the peninsulaa workers political revolution to overthrow
the Stalinist bureaucracy headed by Kim Jong-il in the North, and a social
revolution to overthrow capitalism in the South.
But even those aims of the DLP that are in themselves supportable
are unrealizable under capitalism and the imperialist world order, with the
U.S. exerting its might at every corner of the world. For example, unless the
chaebols, the conglomerations of monopoly capital that dominate political and
economic life, are expropriated, shady deals between business and politicians
will continue. And in this period of neo-liberal attacks on the working class
around the world, in countries like South Korea, the social benefits associated
with a welfare state are possible only when the means of production are in the
hands of working class and utilized in the interests of the majority of working
people.
The completely reformist and social democratic nature of
Kwons platform, however, is not the invention of his own brain. His is
the model of generations of reformists infesting the workers movement,
originating in Korea with Jo Bong-arm, who founded the Progressive Party on the
heels of the devastation of the Korean War in the 1956 presidential election.
Under the acute social crisis engendered by the total destruction of productive
resources, he got massive support from the oppressed and won 2.2 million votes,
second only to Sung Man Rhee, the head of the U.S. puppet regime. Less than two
years later, this Korean prototype of social democracy was court-martialed and
executed after being charged with acting as an agent of the North Korean
regime.
Recent attempts by social democrats to win political
respectability in this land of anti-communist hysteria and virulent state
repression of all working class politics shows that reformists never learn
anything from history. In the vain hope that they could have the impact that
their Western European co-thinkers hadin an earlier era and on the back
of a strong trade union bureaucracyKorean reformists regrouped in 1990 to
found the Peoples Party. That party in turn joined forces with reformists
of the Korean Labor Party, a combination of the three biggest Stalinist
underground groups, which had reoriented toward open, mass activity in the wake
of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Declaring that they would represent the
mass workers movement, newly resurgent since the Great Workers
Struggle of 1987, these social democrats stood in the National Assembly
elections of April 1992, but their hopes were quickly dashed when they got a
meager one percent of the vote and won not a single electoral district. The
party was disbanded summarily under the Political Party Law. The leaders of
this party are now National Assembly members of the bourgeois Grand National
Party, and they adamantly oppose the workers movements long
struggle to abolish draconian National Security Law, which had killed their
ill-fated political forefather Jo Bong-arm.
The DLPs presidential candidate Kwon is only the latest
product of this pitiful history of Korean social democracy. Formerly the
international correspondent of a state-owned newspaper, he was the president of
National Journalists Union in 1989 and subsequently assumed the
leadership of the "democratic and independent" trade union movement. When the
Korean Council of Trade Unions (KCTU) was launched in 1995 with Kwon as its
founding president, it declared itself the rightful and proud heir of the
militant workers movement. Already, however, the first generation leaders
of the Great Workers Struggle were showing signs of their accommodation to the
bourgeois order by the limits they sought to place on militancy. The leaders of
the KCTU sought to win legal recognition from the state and to portray
themselves as "responsible and respectable" under the slogan of "the
workers movement aiming at social reform in the interests of the whole
nation". They preferred negotiation and compromise to the intransigent
militancy that the movement needed for survival under the onslaught of
neo-liberalism.
When Kim Dae-jungs predecessor Kim Young-sam passed a series
of laws to facilitate layoffs and maximize labor "flexibility" at the end of
1996, the KCTU leadership called the first-ever general strike since the end of
the Korean War (See, "South Korea to the Brink",
1917, No.19, 1997). But Kwon and his ilk made sure the struggle was
kept within the bounds of moderation and "responsibility". Instead of occupying
the workplaces, the usual form of militant union struggle in Korea, the
leadership orchestrated peaceful marches of protest and even barred public
sector unions from participation in the struggle. In the upshot the struggle
failed to wrest any concessions from the government and there were mass
sackings of militants, resulting in management gaining control of the big
unions. Since then, even where rank and file members of the big unions get a
majority for a militant leadership, there are often a greater number of
delegates bought off by the management, making normal trade union functioning
almost impossible.
The cowardice of the KCTU leadership and big union leaders was
highlighted during the recent strike struggle by electricity workers. Five
thousand members of the Union of Electricity Industry (UEI) struck on 25
February this year against government plans to privatize five Korea Electrical
Power Corporation (KEPCO) thermal generating plants. During a thirty-eight-day
struggle, the government sent the police into workplaces to make arrests.
Workers fled, gathered at locations secretly relayed to members by cellular
phone, and continued the struggle. The government threatened mass dismissals
but the workers were determined to continue until the government backed down.
Then on 2 April the union leaders suddenly endorsed a deal
brokered between the KCTU leaders and the government, and ordered striking
workers to go back to work. The KCTU leadership called off a 120,000 nationwide
solidarity strike minutes before it was scheduled to begin. Union leader Lee
Ho-dong, admitted that the struggle had "failed to prevent the privatization of
public enterprises", but pretended that the power workers had succeeded in
"drawing public interest to the importance of protecting infrastructure
companies".
In fact the agreement was a total capitulation and a major blow
against the working class. It cleared the way for the privatization of the
KEPCO plants and left the government free to take punitive action against the
strikers. Under the agreement, the union accepted an 8 March National Labor
Relations Commission ruling that "privatization is not an issue for collective
bargaining" and referred other issues, including demands for a reduction in
working hours, to the National Labor Relations Commission for arbitration.
The government had declared the power strike illegal under
legislation prohibiting industrial action in essential services, and commenced
legal action to force power workers to compensate KEPCO for about 25 billion
won ($18.99 million). Union negotiators only asked that the government
"minimize" criminal charges and other punitive action against strikers. Over
340 workers had already been sacked and in a move they tried to pass off as
ensuring "fairness in determining civil and criminal responsibility" and the
penalization of an "appropriate" number of workers, the KEPCO management
announced that a further 600 workers would be dismissed for their roles in the
strike.
With the deal wrapped up, union leaders joined the government to
issue a joint statement asking "the general publics forgiveness over the
protracted labor strike" and promising that "labor, management and government
will work together in the future to ensure that such a dispute is not repeated
by honoring the laws and principles concerned".
The epoch of a growing militant social-democratic labor movement
was the epoch of progressive capitalism, when having broken the obstacle of
feudal relations it presided over the spectacular development of productive
forces and created the conditions for systematic reforms. In the reactionary
stage of capitalism, the stage of decaying imperialism, a mass trade union
movement in countries like Korea cannot achieve a stable foundation short of
socialist revolution.
The paralysis of the KCTU leadership in the face of neo-liberal
attacks is to be expected. But Kwon is still banking on this faltering trade
union movement to earn a niche in the bourgeois political world, eager to win
membership of the Socialist International and rub shoulders with Blair,
Schroeder and the other labor lieutenants of the imperialist bourgeoisie.
Of the DLPs 20,000 members about 50 percent are KCTU
members, so it is sometimes called the KCTU party, and the party wants to claim
the 600,000 members of the KCTU union members as its own in the near future,
attempting to duplicate Western social democracy on the soil of a society
polluted with virulent anti-communism. But the KCTU unions are losing members
and disintegrating under the hammer blows of neo-liberalism. According to
statistics compiled by the KCTU, currently 54 percent of the 14 million paid
jobs are temporary and the unionization rate has declined to less than 12
percent with the KCTU claiming 600,000 members and FKTU 950,000. The KCTU
bureaucrats stand on a shaky basetheir mode of existence is precarious,
reflecting the status of the South Korean economy in the imperialist world
order. Unlike their brothers in the imperialist metropolis, who wield massive
union apparatuses and enjoy annual salaries comparable to corporate executives,
even quite senior South Korean union functionaries cope on something a little
above the average wage, and they are under the constant threat of state
repression. Dan Byong-ho, the current president of the KCTU, is right now
sitting in a jail cell on account of industrial actions led by his union body.
In Korean conditions the step from labor bureaucrat to successful
bourgeois politician is a big one. Kwon has always sought the additional
support of "progressive" academics, lawyers and other professional layers, and
constantly proclaimed his readiness to unite with "progressive and
reform-minded elements" of bourgeois parties, giving up the pretence that his
strategy is for a worker-centered party. Such bourgeois elements have as yet
been unwilling to respond, but Kwon would be only too happy to sacrifice
working class interests for the "progressive" agendas of petty bourgeois and
bourgeois forces.
Of course this popular frontist program is by no means unique to
him. Since its inception South Korean social democracy has sought a
"progressive" political alliance with petty bourgeois and "liberal" bourgeois
forces to bolster its chances against apparently overwhelming obstacles.
The popular front, a political alliance between a working class
party and bourgeois political forces, has been used throughout last century by
labor fakers around the world to defuse working class resistance to capitalism.
It has resulted repeatedly in either a complete annihilation or demoralization
of the workers movement for a whole generation. In South Korea, it has
taken the form of a considerable section of workers movement supporting
supposedly liberal bourgeois forces. For example, in the 1987 presidential
election, the first free and direct election in 17 years of electoral
manipulations by military dictatorships, popular front forces in the
workers and popular movements backed either Kim Young-sam or Kim
Dae-jung, and induced the so-called workers and peoples choice Paik
Ki-wan to resign at the last moment in favor of one of the liberal bourgeois
candidates. And it has been one of the common features of Korean politics that
working class leaders have been chosen by bourgeois parties as their left cover
in parliamentary elections. This is one of the reasons why this once militant
workers movement has been in decline.
While socialist revolutionaries expose Kwons reformism, they
are mindful not only that militant sections of the working class see the DLP as
their own party, but also that, precisely because Kwons popular front
appetites have not yet been fulfilled and it is standing against all the open
parties of the bourgeoisie, it remains possible to fight within this party for
politics which transcend reformism. Thus subjectively revolutionary elements
see the DLP as the vehicle for working class political advancement, and several
self-proclaimed revolutionary groups are active within it, vying with the
blatantly reformist leadership. Political clarification and struggle among
oppositional elements of the DLP might represent a real prospect for the
development of a vanguard based on a genuinely revolutionary program.
The International Socialists (IS), whose politics are similar to
the Socialist Workers Party in Britain, dissolved their independent
organization at the founding of the DLP in order to take control of several
branches in Seoul as well as the Student Committee of the party. They also have
a group inside the party, All Together, to lead the peacenik anti-war movement
against US military aggression around the world. Only international solidarity
of the revolutionary working class can defeat imperialism and bring lasting
peace on earth. But the IS ignores this elementary truth and propagates
illusions in the imperialist bourgeoisies peace-loving benevolence.
Inside the party, rather than posing a revolutionary program against the
reformists, they have kept quiet and mobilized their members to be the shock
troops for every DLP mass rally, shamefully capitulating to backward elements
in the movement. In its December magazine the group renders full political
support to Kwon Young-gil, saying "The DLPs election participation is one
of the effective struggles against Lee Hoi-chang. It can be a stepping-stone to
bury the Lee Hoi-chang nightmare", by which they mean his election victory.
Another grouping involving subjectively revolutionary elements is
the Praxis Alliance of Workers and the People toward Equal Society (AE), which
calls itself an "opinion group" intending to be the left-wing pole of
attraction in the party against the class collaborationist leadership. It
opines in its founding statement: "The main reason the workers movement
in general and the DLP in particular is in crisis is that the leadership is
incapable of dealing with the onslaught of capital and the state, and thereby
unable to recognize and solve tasks of the day." And it proposes to all the
healthy elements in the movement and the party that the key is organizing the
suffering, anger and yearning of the shop floor into an effective militant
struggle to revitalize the movement and to change the society. But it never
says how this mission can be accomplished. It relies on the growth of militant
industrial struggle rather than on a revolutionary program. To the extent it
advocates policies, those policies are within the bourgeois order. All in all,
AE is an economist, left reformist and nationalist tendency incapable of
counterposing itself to the blatant reformism of the party leadership.
At the critical moment the DLP leadership will doubtless betray
the working class in ways that require splitting from it, probably by
subjugating itself to an alliance with openly bourgeois interests. However,
revolutionaries seek to stand alongside the most militant workers as they
experience for themselves that the DLP leaderships policies are against
their class interests. While the DLP remains an (admittedly inadequate)
expression of the political independence of the working class, we give it
critical support, calling for a vote for it against the open parties of the
bourgeoisie.
Opponents to the pretender
In the run up to the election several incidents seemed to
complicate Kwons ambition to be the sole champion of "progressive"
forces. On 9 November top bureaucrats of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions
(FKTU), the labor control arm of the state since late 1940s, set up the
Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) and declared themselves to be another champion
of the working people and oppressed masses, with an election platform almost
identical to the DLPs. The FKTU is 50 percent larger than the KCTU, and
the leaders of this bigger but more pro-capitalist union center seemed
confident of their chances of winning at least substantial concessions from
Kwon. At its founding conference the DSP proclaimed its willingness to work
with the DLP to field one "progressive" unity candidate. While Kwon took this
as an opportunity to increase his vote base, the majority of KCTU and DLP
activists must have regarded his willingness to unite with DSP as embarrassing,
given the fact that they have been fighting against the FKTU to create a trade
union movement independent of the bourgeois state for almost two decades. At
the last moment, however, the DSP decided to withdraw its candidacy. The rumor
is that the party leaders demanded Kwon that he guarantee them parliamentary
seats in the 2004 elections for their partys merger with the DLP and
support to Kwon. Revolutionaries should condemn and expose the cynical
maneuvering of the union misleaders, calling for the building of a
revolutionary workers party that would mobilize the best working class
militants and secure their political independence from alien class forces.
On the other hand, the mood of reconciliation and cooperation
among the leadership of the DLP and DSP seemed to vindicate the legitimacy of
standing an "intransigent and principled" candidate of the working class and
oppressed strata. With a program almost identical to that of the DLP but
claiming to be anti-electoralist, anti-class collaborationist, and against the
regime of the North, the Socialist Party (SP)an amalgamation of rump
groups arising out of the breakup of Stalinismentered the race with its
own candidate, Professor Kim Young-gyoo, president of the SP. But the SP, with
its own brand of reformism and without any mass base, hardly represents the
interests of the working class and does not pose itself as a political
representative of the working class against the open bourgeois political
forces, thus excluding critical support from the revolutionaries. The SPs
opposition to the ruling North Korean bureaucracy is certainly necessary. But
its program overlooks an important element: unconditional military defense of
the North Korean deformed workers state not only against imperialism but also
against "Sunshine policies" which aim to exploit Pyongyangs endemic
difficulties with the object of capitalist reunification.
The Power of the Working Class (PWC) is another group opposed to
the DLPs legalism, electoralism and reformism, proclaiming its mission to
be that of setting up a genuine working class combat party. It claims to stand
for a program truly representing the historic interests of the working class
and proposes that the genuine forces of the workers movement should work
together to draw up such a program. It seeks to model itself on the Australian
Democratic Socialist Party and the German Democratic Socialist
Partyoutright reformist outfits. Composed mostly of "progressive"
professors with Stalinist and nationalist past records at the top and workerist
trade union activists at the bottom, the PWC has tried to create its own mass
base counterposing itself to the KCTU and DLP. However, it proved unable to
play an electoral role. Sensing that it could not create its base in time for
the approaching election, it decided at its emergency conference on 14
September to set up a "National Committee for Joint Struggle", which would pick
a unity candidate for the movement and, at the same time lead the workers
and oppressed masses struggle based on their felt needs. But it disbanded
the committee soon after its creation fearing that it would only help
Kwons claim to be the sole candidate of the working class.
While perhaps quantitatively to the left, neither the SP and the
PWC have in the slightest degree transcended a minimum/maximum program. While
posing the socialist revolution as an ultimate goal, in their actual practice
they justify confining the struggle to the level of economist issues of
workplace rights and conditions. Ultimately they have the same programmatic
defect as the DLP, but none of its virtue as the embodiment of real (if
deformed) mass working-class struggle against the bourgeoisie.
What is needed to advance working class emancipation is a
transitional program, that is, a system of demands that address the
basic, felt needs of the working class while raising their level of political
consciousness in opposition to capitalism. Without the abolition of capitalism
and the establishment of a workers government the realization of basic
needs will be at best transitory.
A revolutionary transitional program would fight for a drastically
shorter working week with no loss of pay, opening business books, workers
control of production, workers self-defense guards and militia, and the
creation of workers government. These demands, put forward systematically
and tailored to the concrete conditions of struggle, can mobilize the working
class masses in the struggle against mass unemployment and the degradation of
workers living standards engendered by neo-liberal attacks initiated by
the capitalists in Korea and abroad.
Such a program is necessary to promote the understanding that only
a workers government is capable of tackling the problems facing the
workers and oppressed masses around the world.
The demand for a shorter work week with no loss of pay and other
related demands put forward to combat mass unemployment and union-busting by
many of the workers organizations including the KCTU in recent years are
not revolutionary in themselves. Putting forward these demands in a piecemeal
and eclectic manner cannot raise workers consciousness beyond the limits
of capitalist economic logic. The job of the revolutionaries is to tear workers
away from their spontaneous tendency to limit their struggle to narrow confines
of economism, in order to lift their field of vision to the big pictureto
the understanding that only working class socialist revolution can
fundamentally and lastingly solve the day-to-day problem of securing their
rights to life.
The primary duty of revolutionaries is to build a party based on a
program that can lead the working class through the transition from
todays consciousness and level of struggle to a revolutionary
consciousness and level of struggle. To achieve that, and to assimilate the
lessons of the world socialist movement, an earnest and comradely political
debate is necessary among those who are sincere about the need for proletarian
revolution.
Ultra-leftism of boycotters
There are several self-proclaimed Trotskyist grouplets, which
produce occasional items of underground literature. They usually condemn the
DLP and the SP for their reformist politics, and they call for workers and
revolutionaries to boycott the election. One of them is a group calling itself
the Forward March toward Workers Power. The 9 November issue of its press
published an article entitled "Where is the reformist political movement
heading?" It defines the DLP as a bourgeois reform party and argues that
"Critical support to reformism takes various forms but its political conclusion
is always the same: it strengthens reformist politics of the DLP in the workers
movement." And it ends with the run-of-the-mill abstract argument that a
socialist movement can fulfill its role only when it combines with advanced
workers to create powerful revolutionary party.
Another is a group calling itself Class Vanguard. In an article
"The 2002 Presidential Election and the Tactics of Revolutionary Militants",
the group rightly argues that "No matter how narrow the field of intervention
in the 2002 presidential election, revolutionary fighters should explore every
possibility to raise working class consciousness, as is their task." But its
conclusion is a prevarication: "If you think you should support Kwon, do so.
But regardless of your position on Kwon, I urge you to work with us in order to
organize working class propaganda, agitation, solidarity and struggle in the
manner we are proposing, to utilize the election arena." Their objective of
building a Leninist vanguard party for the overthrow of capitalism is
commendable, and they make some good points against reformism, but their
understanding of the relationship between the working class and mass reformism
is one-sided.
Certainly the DLP leader Kwon and company are deeply compromised
by social-democratic politics, and certainly there are petty bourgeois elements
nesting in the party, but there is no doubt that as a whole this party in its
crude way stands for working class political independence from bourgeois
forces. Furthermore there are anti-leadership forces within the DLP, opposed to
the leaderships as yet unfulfilled popular front appetites. We seek to
expose the political nature of DLP party leadership while facilitating the
opportunity for these working class militants to see for themselves the
anti-working class nature of their leadership. This is best achieved in the
current election campaign within the framework of critical support to Kwon.
Of course, bourgeois electoral processes are designed to bolster
bourgeois political rule, and there is a limit to the possibilities within such
processes for socialist revolutionaries. But we must use the limited
opportunities that do exist to put forward the program that embodies the
historic interests of the working class, and to facilitate the development of
workers political consciousness and unity against the bourgeoisie. Lenin
talked of revolutionaries critical support to a bourgeois workers
party in elections as a "hangmans noose" that will eventually finish off
the lieutenants of capital within the workers movement. Marxists must use
every opportunity to this end, which is why we critically support the labor
faker Kwon in this election.
Such a tactic has its only significance in the context of our
primary goal of building a party based on program which meets the genuine needs
of the working class, that is, the program of revolutionary Marxism, which has
been developed over the last century and a half in such great revolutionary
events as the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian Revolution of 1917, the
creation of the Third International, the struggle of the Russian Left
Opposition against Stalinism and the launching of the Fourth International. We
urge all revolutionary elements in Korea to participate in earnest political
debate to jointly assimilate the historic lessons of the revolutionary working
class movement and to create the foundations for the building of the
revolutionary workers party, the vehicle for the great workers
triumph in the future both in the Korean peninsula and internationally.
-- 18 December 2002 |