Approaches to the Class
Struggle in North Korea
Does the class
struggle exist in North Korea? Two main issues includes in
this question the first one is a definition, what is the class
struggle, the second one is what social formation North Korea has as a
predominant characteristic. These subjects simply are the matter
of question whether the concept of the class struggle is valid in North
Korea. Before confronting directly, talk about the early history of
North Korea as concerned whether the people have a method for the class
struggle.
The tool for the class
struggle, labor union, was transformed to the General Federation of Trade
Unions of Korea (GFTUK, Jikubchongdongmang in Korean) on Nov,
30, 1945, which was the organization more for contributing
to education of the ideology of labor party, discipline such as
seminar, small group activities etc, than for striking against the capitalist
before 1945 the (pro) Japanese capitalist. It seemed like the continuity
between two organizations lasts, but the labor union's roles
of taking sides of workers, gathering, protesting against employers,
negotiating wage, welfare, was gradually diminished by the
debate between O, Ki-sub, Head of Labor Department and
Kim, Il-sung. O argued GFTUK ought to guarantee the rights of workers, but
was criticized by Kim that he applied the principle of labor union in
capitalism, after the 2th congress of the Korean Workers’
Party, the labor right was emphasized on the duty of workers, O was
dismissed from one of his position at party. In short,
there is no labor union familiar to a present view after, at most, 1947.
The reorganization of
the labor union in North Korea is following the experience right
after 1917 when the U.S.S.R. had been in chaos, the remains of
imperial military and the outside countries started to attack
the Bolshevik all over the territory and from every direction, and
they reorganized the union for settling the transition. North Korea wasn't
in a different situation after the liberation, needed to stabilize the
society, keeping eyes on the political, military movement of the southern part
over the 38th parallel and, plus, Japan.
Meanwhile, O, Ki-sub is
a famous socialist from the colonial period, especially one of the leaders of
the Won-san great strike in 1929. After 1945, he was in a loose
meaning a head of socialists fought in the northern part of Korea. It,
however, wasn’t same kinds of Kim, Il-sung's Man-chu partisans as an
undividable unity, because they rarely had a chance to organize an
official group by the reason of difficulty of the public gathering by the crackdown
of the (pro) Japanese police. His dismissal as consequence of the clash in
1947 wasn’t serious, returned soon, but engaged in the series of the
fraction conflicts through 1950s. The debate between O and Kim in 1947 had a
meaning of the first opposition against the power of Kim, Il-sung at one
point which indicate a prolusion of purges in 1950s
Without labor union, no
class struggle? Haven’t North Korea had the class struggle from the near
beginning? From here, all things are debatable, a repeated
supposition, which means beyond the dimension of history. North Korea
basically is based on "socialism". Someone couldn't approve this
word, then, at least, can say that one of the principles
of North Korea is "socialism". Socialism means the society
without the capitalist by collectivizing or nationalizing the means of
production each industry such as manufacturing, commerce, agriculture. North
Korea officially declared in 1958 they finished collectivizing all the means of
production. Without the capitalist, for employee no subject was to fight
for the class struggle.
However, disagreed with
assumption North Korea grounded on the socialism rule, one could assert a
subject in a meaning of the capitalist or a feature of a hybrid form
between capitalism and socialism exists in North Korea. This is an opening
question entering to the debate of the social formation of North Korea, which
arguing what kinds of means of production North Korea are predominant and from
when could determine its form of North Korea changed. For example, one
claim the 10 percent of the current economy of North Korea is in the form
of the capitalism production. Who is capitalist? It's difficult to presume the
capitalist is in North Korea because the capitalist is a human being
representing the interests of capital. And then, though it’s impossible to
know and judge how much degree privatization proceeded in the bureaucracy
organization, if assumed the bureaucrat works like a quasi-capitalist, where is
the class struggle? As concerned with the class struggle, there’s been no news
in North Korea. Turing to the eyes over the north border, the East Northern
China had a great strike after 2004. Then, questions continue in a
row. How much difference China and North Korea have? Could conclude the people
in North Korea have become so brainwashed that lost their power of resistance,
lacked in judgments?
The other way handling
this is through the conceptual redefinition. Understanding of the class
struggle is molded into general impressions such as the strike of labor union, negotiation
of wage, labor condition. A group rethinking Marxism accepts one of the failure
reasons in the socialism experiment as understanding of Marxism and tries to
reinterpret Marx’s works. In one of their thought, all the clashes between the
owner and the workers in distribution of value production, not only the
economical but the political, are the class struggle. If agreeing with this, every
behavior e.g. slowdown, absence etc. is included in the class struggle, and the
place for the production become a spot of occurring the class struggle itself,
thus find the possibility of explaining the class struggle in North Korea.
Above, however, is
pivoting the unavoidable question about the social formation of North Korea, existence
of the capitalist by generalizing the entire place to the site of the class
struggle. Back to the question from the start, “Does the class struggle
exist in North Korea?” could be answered in the different approaches,
though a certain way of explanations couldn’t be a “correct answer” and, also,
finding a “correct answer” is difficult right now, but it is obvious that this
question is closely interrelated to asking how North Korea and its society
could be defined in or over the capitalism.
Reference
____
After writing, checked this posting which make to want to ask myself, then, what the socialist experiment has been.
http://freekorea.us/2017/03/03/class-warfare-in-north-korea/#sthash.oTmJIsUC.dpbs
