Routledge Advances in Korean Studies, 30. London; New York: Routledge, 2016. xvi, 190 pp. (Tables.) US$145.00, cloth. ISBN 978-1-138-91405-6.
“Socialism” and “South Korea” seem incompatible categories from the perspective of conventional perceptions of the Cold War divide on the Korean Peninsula. But Yunjong Kim connects them in his book by examining the reasons for the failure of socialism in South Korea. For this purpose, the author offers a comprehensive historical review of the political processes in South Korea, from the liberation and then division of Korea to recent times, with a focus on the parties of the Left, ranging from radical revolutionary parties (communist, socialist) to moderate or social democratic ones. Kim divides the factors contributing to the failure of socialism in Korea to structural ones, such as the Cold War divide and the military regimes in the South, and agency—leadership and strategies of the parties (2). The author combines the two groups of factors in studying the evolution of socialism in South Korea. While Kim agrees with the traditional view that in the pre-democracy period (1945–1987), structural factors played a crucial role in stifling socialism, he also pays attention to agency factors (6, 161). The author concludes that the failure of Marxism to convert to socialism, and radical socialism to reformism, in the era of democratization since 1987 is mostly due to outdated ideologies, problems of strategy, and “poor leadership in legal politics” (161).
Starting his narrative with national liberation, the author supports traditional interpretations of the division of Korea. For example, he points to Soviet expansionism and the establishment of a state in the North by Kim Il Sung in December 1945; the American occupational authority’s rejection of the Korean (Chosun) People’s Republic because it was “overwhelmingly communist”; the Korean War was started by communist attack, etc. (51, 56). Kim acknowledges the importance of structural factors like American support for a right-wing government in the South, but also maintains that the communists made mistakes that cost them dearly, such as their “overly optimistic view of the revolutionary consciousness of the working class and the peasant class” (48–49). The question remains, though, even if the leftist forces in the South had more realistic views and strategies, they could hardly have forced a different outcome.
The author outlines key structural barriers for socialism in the 1950s, such as the Korean War, during and after which the Left was thoroughly suppressed in the South; “conservative party cartel”; the lack of democracy; and the low-level of industrialization, which translated into insufficient working-class support (57, 59, 84). Despite the rise of the Progressive Party and electoral successes under the leadership of Cho Bongam, who was executed in 1958, “there was almost nothing the Left could do” within the Cold War setting (56). Similarly, the Left faced insurmountable obstacles during the period of military regimes (1962–1987), but it re-emerged in the form of the minjung undong (people’s movement), led by undonggwŏn—pro-democracy activist groups, or the “new Left,” and based on an alliance between students and labour organizations (87, 107).
In the 1980s, democratization allowed the reestablishment of the trade union movement. Hence the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) was established with the support of the major trade union—the Federation of Democratic Trade Unions (109). Nevertheless, Kim identifies “the new Left’s strategy based on a revolutionary underground party” and “revolutionary socialism” as the key reasons for its failure to develop into a moderate Left or social democratic force, despite the favorable conditions, such as democratization, a civil society, and prosperous economy (113, 137). Further, the DLP also failed to develop a social democratic strategy suitable to the electoral politics of the early 2000s due to its radical socialist agenda and factionalism. Two radical rival factions controlling the DLP—the nationalist pro-North Korea group called National Liberation and the radical socialist one called People’s Democracy—eventually led to a party split in 2008 (139, 143, 159).
The study of South Korean democratization since the 1980s is focused exclusively on the traditional left and its more radical forms. It is somewhat surprising that the author does not consider political forces like the parties led by Kim Dae-jung as social democratic phenomena, rather than sticking to the conventional definition of the dissident-turned-president as a “centrist.” Liberal and progressive parties in South Korea, including those of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, have much in common with European social democratic parties. For instance, they all support small and medium businesses and have anti-monopoly economic agendas; promote social welfare; supported rapprochement and cooperation with socialist countries during the Cold War era (in South Korea this meant the “Sunshine Policy” toward the North), etc. Yunjong Kim’s analysis confines itself to orthodox terminology and misses important political trends of the democratization era in South Korea. Any reference to terms like “Left,” “social democratic,” and “socialist,” let alone “communist,” in the South Korean context are inevitably drawn into the gravitational pull of the Cold War paradigm and the North-South ideological and political divide. With a few exceptions, North Korea’s impact on South Korean politics is another omission in the book. It is difficult to examine thoroughly the socialist trend in South Korea without taking into account the dichotomy on the Korean Peninsula. The South Korean Constitutional Court’s ban of the Unified Progressive Party in 2014 for being pro-North Korean is a fresh example of this interconnectivity.
Yunjong Kim’s book provides a discussion of major communist and socialist trends in South Korea, engaging various interpretations in secondary sources. Yet the study offers little new evidence for scholarship, as its use of primary sources is limited. The author undertakes a comparative analysis of socialism in Western Europe and Latin America, which helps to elucidate the evolution of socialism in South Korea. Kim mentions the collapse of communist parties in Eastern Europe (15), but the democratization of the socialist countries could be a productive venue for comparative study, particularly the transformation of former communist parties into social democratic ones (similar to West European socialist parties in the post-war period), parties which managed to become political forces to be reckoned with and even won elections and formed governments in the post-communist era. Overall, the book presents a valuable review of the political processes in South Korea and contributes to the broader discussion of the evolution of socialism on the Korean Peninsula as an important part of that country’s modern history.
Avram Agov
Langara College, Vancouver, Canada
pp. 161-163