Review of 'Anarchism in Korea'
Dongyoun Hwang, Anarchism in Korea: Independence, Transnationalism, and the Question of National Development 1919–1984 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2016)
Review by George Katsiaficas (2017)
Full Text
Although the author begins by asserting that anarchism was one of the ten most important ideologies of 20th century Korea, he does not consider the activities of thousands of nameless activists who together comprised the anarchist movement. Rather, this book details the lives of prominent anarchists in Korea, Japan, China, and Manchuria.
Buried in Spain under the guns of Stalinists rectitude and denied its true place in history by decades of the Franco dictatorship, the Spanish expression of international anarchism is well known and has been the subject of dozens of books. The history of its counterpart in East Asia is only beginning to be written, at least in English. Hwang traces Korean anarchists to China and Japan, thereby giving readers a sense of the movement’s transnational character. Although his analysis is largely confined to East Asia, he acknowledges Kropotkin as “probably the most important anarchist theoretician” in East Asia and notes the existence of a Korean version of England’s Freedom Press.
Korean anarchism predates Japanese conquest at the end of the 19th century. Like many Western accounts of Korean resistance and uprisings, however, this book makes it appear as if Japan were the source of anarchism while indigenous traditions such as the democratic and communal forms of self-government among Jeju female divers are not considered. The 1980 Gwangju uprising is also neglected despite its vibrant history of citizens spontaneously organizing themselves to defeat thousands of elite paratroopers and then to rule themselves through direct democracy for nearly a week in their liberated city—until the US White House insisted upon the dictatorship’s “restoration of order.” Hwang’s failure to consider Gwangju’s real life embodiment of anarchist principles would sit well with organizations there created by the uprising that are today government-funded and pro-American. Similarly, the practical necessity dictated by South Korean anti-communism may have caused the author to frame Korean anarchism as an endeavor to “avoid a false accusation” of anarchism’s close connection to early 20th century communism. Anarchists such as Shin Chaeho are repeatedly recognized without giving readers a clear sense of their impassioned embrace of both socialism and anarchism in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. (Shin died in a Japanese prison in 1936.)
Hwang’s analysis focuses on individuals, theories, journals, and groups’ names but not on actions and programs. He refers to significant anarchist organizations, such as the True Friends League organized in Daegu in 1925, the Black Wave Society in Tokyo in the early 1920s, the Black Flag League in Beijing in 1924, the Korean Anarchist League in China in 1924, and the Black Friends Society formed in 1929, but frames them in the context of prominent individuals like Yu Rim and Yu Seol. The visionary programs of these groups are only minor background details. Simultaneously Hwang largely ignores militant anarchist actions against Japan. He names the Black Terrorist Society but does not discuss in detail armed assaults involving the assassination of Japanese high officials and military commanders as well as Korean traitors. Would a study of Spanish anarchism similarly marginalize the contributions of the Durruti Column or fail to analyze deeply the programs of the CNT and FAI?
Unlike contemporary anarchists, Korean activists in the 1920s “didn’t seem to be divided or in conflict over theoretical issues” but attempted to establish united organizations. The League of Korean Anarchists in Manchuria formed in 1929 to nurture economic mutual aid among more than two million Koreans then living there. The League became one of three self-governing Korean energy centers in Manchuria. It advocated and created a “society of no rule.” Hwang does not clarify the tragic conclusion to anarchism’s glorious Manchurian days. People’s cooperative way of life was crushed by Japanese military raids and Stalinist betrayals. Hwang hints of that fate when he causally mentions the assassinations of Kim Jwajin in 1930 and Kim Jongjim (chairman of the Korean Anarchist Federation in Manchuria) in 1931.
The vibrant history of Korean anarchists can be glimpsed in recent movies such as “Anarchists from Colony” and “Assassination.” Now available on Netflix, the former tells the story of Fumiko Kaneko and Park Yeol, comrade-lovers who were imprisoned and tried on the false charges of attempting to assassinate the emperor. Their trial was a crude attempt to justify the massacre of thousands of Koreans after the 1923 earthquake in Japan. “Assassination” portrays a group of Korean anarchists who operate behind enemy lines. Not surprisingly, their travails include betrayals within their group as well as police machinations and traps.
In his conclusion, Hwang decries Korean anarchists’ toleration of US neocolonial domination after World War II and calls upon them to revive “the ideals from earlier years.”