[KS] Juche Thought and "A true Marxist does not think in terms of Japanese or Korean..." 土種主義 vs 普遍主義(corrected)

[Kye C Kim]

Hi,

Reading your comment that "A true Marxist does not think in terms of
Japanese or Korean..," I found myself wondering just exactly in what terms
does a Japanese XXX or a Korean XXX might indeed think?  And what exactly
might be the appeal of such a flexible vessel of political ideology as 主體思想
consists of?

I wonder if 土種主義/土着主義/nativism should not be considered as one of the
motivating factors behind the attraction of 主體思想.  Nativisim, or 토종주의, is a
palpable fact of of psychology in East Asia, ever more palpable today,
especially after gaining sovereignty/主權 when nativisim is all that might be
left as an expression of nationalism or national spirit.  This I think is
particular true when there is a feeling that national honor and dignity, or 國體,
has not been satisfactorily redeemed or restored.  Even within the term 主體,
the most direct and relevant associations of 主權 and 國體, that is sovereignty
and national/people's honor, are clearly present, indicating the terms that
are central and who is to be the central, indeed only, leading actor.  For
those who feel disenfranchised, oppressed by outsiders, what can be better?

Some concrete examples from modern day Korea might be helpful
illustrations.  토종학자 is often seen as more worthy, purer than those who
have been tainted by foreign training and their appointment to faculty
position in US is hailed a proud achievement. This is somewhat embarrassing
but a few weeks after I posted that LG 英語公用 was a smashing success, the
company announced that they were abandoning the project and sending the
English executives all packing.  The torrent of news articles cheering
their departure with "good riddance" etc is rather typical.  Even the
travails of President Suh at KAIST is now revolving around 토종/외세.


Yours,

Joobai Lee

5/29/2012

P.S.
土着主義 is probably the more common translation for nativism
Here is a link to some discussion on Nativism and Karatani Kojin, one of
the few EA thinkers with standing in the West.
Introduction to *Kojin Karatani's* "Nationalism and
Ecriture"<http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol5/derrida.html>





On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ruediger Frank <
ruediger.frank at univie.ac.at> wrote:

>  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/20120529/19230a37/attachment.html>