[KS] Juche Thought

[Ruediger Frank]

Dear Prof. Boynton and all,
chuch'e is a controversial topic, with very different perspectives. Like almost everything related to North Korea, it seems to invite extreme positions. My two cents, hopefully balanced enough not to trigger any hatemail in response:
-- it seems that juche or chuch'e actually has been used as a term by the Japanese during the colonial period, in the term shutaisei (chuch'esòng); as a child of his time, Kim Il Sung would not have been the only person in Asia to be inspired by the hated but at the same time so superior Japanese; the 1970s connection might thus be much older and explain, directly or indirectly, the appeal of the term and concept to Japanese
-- besides, I would look into how exactly they perceived chuch'e, and which parts of it they found attractive; we have seen "selective adaptation" happening to other terms and concepts including freedom, democracy etc. (they might say "chuch'e" but mean something very different)
-- I have been a friend of Brian since 1994 and generally like his ideas; the article on "the watershed that wasn't" (central argument: chuch'e did not emerge in 1955 but only in the mid-1960s) is simply excellent; but I disagree with the notion that chuch'e is nothing but hot air (although it is full of it, to be sure)
-- chuch'e as I understand it means two things: the explicit declaration of independence from Moscow and Beijing and from their claim to possess the one and only correct interpretation of what socialism (or at that time, Marxism-Leninism) means (it thus coincides with the Sino-Soviet split); and the remarkable feat of mixing oil and water (socialism and nationalism)
-- a few words on the latter might be in place: Marx' theory is built on the idea of two antagonistic classes; these are economically determined (ownership of means of production) and thus necessarily of a universal nature; the last sentence of the Communist Manifesto not coincidentally says "workers of all countries, unite". A true Marxist does not think in terms of Japanese or Korean; he thinks (or is supposed to think) in terms of "worker" vs. "capitalist". This was used by the Soviets (ignoring the fact that Lenin himself was the first heretic) to argue that any "local" approach to socialism/communism as such would make no sense, as working class is working class and to achieve liberalization, it would have to be led by the most advanced part of it - of course Moscow. Beijing at some point made similar claims on its own behalf, with an emphasis on masses (rather than workers who were in short supply). In order to overcome this, Kim Il Sung needed to reformulate the whole story. He did so by undoing what Marx claimed to have done with Hegel - putting philosophy from its head back on its feet. Hegel and other idealists argued that idea (logos) determines nature; Marx said no: we cannot overcome matter's constraints; and Kim Il Sung said "man is master of everything" (apologies for these oversimplifications). If you contrast this sentence with Hegel and Marx, it suddenly sounds not so ridiculous and empty anymore. Yes, it even makes Kim Il Sung somehow a Hegelian although he might not have been aware of it (and Hegel would rotate in his grave). Marx meant that you are a proletarian if you do not own means of production and have to sell your workforce; and you will be a bourgeois as long as you own means of production and exploit the workforce of others. This is why private entrepreneurship and socialism necessarily collide ideologically (China is an interesting case) and a socialist market economy is an oxymoron. Kim Il Sung now threw Marx over board by saying that it is our own decision whether we are progressive (aka good guy) or not. What comes handy for a dictator is that if you ignore the material conditions, it becomes impossible to objectively determine who is "good" and who is "bad". This made the leader (Kim) absolutely central, like a referee in a game. Besides, it also allowed Kim Il Sung to shamelessly import whatever foreign ideas he wanted as long as he could claim to have "adjusted them to the specific conditions of his country" and thus "purified" those by definition tainted (here I again agree with Brian) foreign ideas. What exactly that was - only the leader knew. That's why so many books have been written about chuch'e, and why they contain so little. Chuch'e's (often misunderstood) key feature is precisely that it is so amorphous. 
-- I have argued ten years ago that such a view allowed sòn'gun to claim that the working class was not the leading group in society anymore; thus laying the ideological foundation for market reforms that would not collide with NK's socialist ideology
Now I guess all this is what makes chuch'e so attractive: beyond ethno-centric nationalism, it is completely hollow and without any precise (and potentially limiting) instructions, except for the one that whatever you do, do it exactly as you wish and as your identity as a Korean (or whatever your nationality is) requires. That means you can use it in the most flexible way while always being able to accuse others of not doing it right. 
-- Chuch'e is also a way to approach nationalism from the left side, rather than being ultra-rightist. Imagine you are a Japanese who has deep patriotic feelings but hates the right-wing folks; chuch'e is a way out of what otherwise would be a serious dilemma.
Last but not least, often adherence to one particular idea means actually refusal of another one. I think one of the harshest forms of expressing dissatisfaction with political realities in Japan in the time you mention would have been approval of North Korea's ideology. This would explain the extremism of those individual beliefs: hate seems to be stronger than love, I'm afraid. Other threads to follow would be the Chongryon connection, or a sense of guilt over the colonial period, and so forth. Many options.
Best regards,
Rudiger Frank



on Montag, 28. Mai 2012 at 07:52 you wrote:


I've been an enthusiastic consumer of this listserv for the past two years, and although I
have found it extremely helpful and informative, I've never posted before. I'm finishing writing
a book about North Korea's abduction project in the 1970s and 1980s, and am having trouble
writing a chapter having to do with the Yodogo hijackers, juche study groups and juche thought.

My problem is that I can't find a way to explain the allure that juche has for some people, especially
young Japanese in the 1970s. I'm sure that leftist enthusiasm for the North Korean experiment played a role,
but it couldn't have been that entirely. The juche ideas I've encountered have seemed like pretty thin gruel, and
I was hoping someone could direct me to literature or individuals who could hep me understand why some 
people have felt compelled to change their lives and become followers of juche. 

I'm familiar with BR Meyers argument that juche is little more than philosophical nonsense produced purely
for export. Perhaps it is, but I'd like to understand why some have found it worth importing. Thank you. I welcome any 
responses either via the listserv, or to my email, which is bellow. 
-- 
Robert S. Boynton
Director of Literary Reportage Concentration
Associate Professor
Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute
New York University
20 Cooper Square
New York, NY 10003
robert.boynton at nyu.edu
212-998-7594

TOKYO CELL NUMBER: 080-3413-2370

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20120528/4316c49d/attachment.html>