On
February 17th 2015, a history professor from the University of Southern
California, Kyung Moon Hwang, penned an article
– History of
anti-communism in South Korea
– in The
Korea Times.
In
the article, Professor Hwang claimed that particularly older Koreans'
views of communism was outdated and antiquated. He claimed that it
was a result of the American government's attempt at establishing an
anti-communist front in Northeast Asia during the height of the Cold War, as well as
subsequent Korean governments' attempts to legitimize their own rule
over the people.
Therefore,
as Professor Hwang says, despite the fact that “communism was a
much more complicated topic than what they (Koreans) had been taught,” most people took it for granted, and the Korean people “simply
equated communism with North Korea, without wondering how communism
or socialism arose around the world, or why it might have been so
appealing in Korea in the earlier part of the 20th century,” which
has, therefore, allowed the ruling class to maintain their hold on
power by engaging in red-baiting.
Professor
Hwang ends his article by saying that older South Koreans remain
beholden to their history, “in an almost juvenile manner;” and that “a
truer maturation of this (Korean) society will eventually emerge with
the passing of its most mature generations.”
Professor
Hwang was certainly correct about a lot of things; though I'm not sure about his last sentence. However, what is
interesting is that Professor Hwang never seems to explain a few
things.
For
one thing, he does not explain why Koreans' views of communism may be
antiquated. He simply starts out with that premise as an established
fact. To be specific, he assumes that because the American and Korean
governments said that communism was evil, the people accepted that
communism was evil at face value.
I
am not sure if Professor Hwang consciously or subconsciously believes this or not, but
I get the feeling that he seems to think that individuals are not
capable of having their own thoughts that are not spoon-fed to them
by governmental or intellectual elites.
![]() |
Image Source |
For
instance, although Professor Hwang mentions a great deal about the
corrupt nature of South Korea's past dictatorships, their use of
anti-communism as a tool to suppress political opponents, and the unjust nature of the National Security Law, he does not
even mention in passing the egregious acts of terror and political
crimes that were committed by the communists (see here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, here,
here, here,
here,
here,
and here).
No,
the crimes that were committed by the communists do NOT
excuse the crimes that were committed by the anti-communists, whether they were committed in Korea or in any other part of the world. Two
wrongs never make a right. However, what Professor Hwang utterly
failed to do, which ought to shame him considering that he is a
professor of history, is that he seems to be implying that
anti-communism somehow existed in a vacuum.
However, one thing that Professor
Hwang certainly got right was when he said that it is wrong to equate
communism with North Korea. I agree with him there. Such comparisons are ludicrous. That would be
akin to equating capitalism with South Korea (I'm looking at you,
Korea Exposé).
![]() |
Image Source |
But
how would accepting communism as a much more complicated topic lead
to “a truer maturation of this society?” Is Professor Hwang
simply talking about raising the academic standards of Koreans? Or is
he talking about adopting (at least some) communist policies or philosophical beliefs as our own?
If
it is the former, I certainly have no problems with it. After all, it
was Sun
Tzu who said,
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the
result of a hundred battles.”
However,
if it is the latter, well.
Of
course, some people who are reading this will quickly object that
communism, as advocated by Karl
Marx
and Ludwig
Feuerbach, has nothing to do with the crimes and the terror that
were committed in its name by their successors. But is that true?
I
have heard many people say that while the tactics and the methods
that were employed by communist regimes were brutal and evil,
communist ideals remain noble. That is a damned, dirty lie.
Communist ideals are NOT noble. When an ideology makes the claim that an individual must not live for himself, but rather for the sake of the Proletariat, it becomes evident that the chief purpose of such an ideology is to destroy independence in all of its forms – thought, action, property, and being. It's very end goal becomes to create nothing less than a slave-state.
![]() |
Image Source |
Communist ideals are NOT noble. When an ideology makes the claim that an individual must not live for himself, but rather for the sake of the Proletariat, it becomes evident that the chief purpose of such an ideology is to destroy independence in all of its forms – thought, action, property, and being. It's very end goal becomes to create nothing less than a slave-state.
Professor
Hwang is correct when he says that communism has been absurdly
distorted by the North Korean regime. However, he does not seem to
stop to wonder whether or not the North Korean regime might be the logical
outcome of communist ideals when put into practice.
When
calls are made for people to give their all, by necessity, there must
be those who will do the collecting. And when people are made to live
for the King or the State or the Proletariat or for God, then, by necessity, that
ideology, and its leaders in particular, will demand conformity,
submission, and obedience.
So do Koreans have a rather juvenile understanding of communism? I think it would not be too difficult to make such a case. In that regard, Professor Hwang may be right. The problem, however, and one that Professor Hwang does not bother to mention, is that communism itself is quite juvenile.
![]() |
Image Source |