The concept of nationalism and the nature of the nationalist movement The opinions of academia on how to view the nationalism or nationalist movement during the colonial period are largely divided into five as follows. First, nationalism and socialism are strictly distinguished, only nationalism is regarded as the ideology of the national liberation movement, and socialism is regarded only as the ideology of the class movement. In this case, compromise and non-compromise within nationalism are not a big deal. Rather, we value the improved and compromised cultural movement and self-government movement even more as "training skills." From this point of view, we do not appreciate the new society formed by uncompromising nationalists in association with socialists. This view has long been adhered to by South Korea's anti-communist conservative academia. Second, in the wake of the March 1st Movement, the period when nationalism dominated the anti-Japanese national liberation struggle in Joseon came to an end and the nationalist movement rapidly declined. And the view is that most of the upper classes of bourgeois nationalism have fallen into folk improvementists and have completely merged with Japanese imperialism. From this point of view, with the decline of the nationalist movement, nationalism lost its dominant position in the anti-Japanese national liberation struggle, and instead, the communist movement developed rapidly and came to the forefront of the national liberation struggle. On top of this view, the National Unification Front is not considered very important. Third, 'nationalism' in the colony is considered to be established only in uncompromising cases, and thus, 'national improvement' is considered to be incompatible with the category of nationalism. In this case, the commonality and similarity between 'nationalism' and 'nationalist improvementism' are denied, and national improvementism is regarded as a 'pro-Japanese enemy' who has been eliminated from the front line of the national movement. In this view, 'national improvementism' itself is regarded as a product of Japanese colonial rule policy. And this view greatly emphasizes the importance of a national unification front between socialists and uncompromising nationalists. The national liberation movement and revolution in colonial Korea should have been achieved through the united front. Fourth, the basic nature of bourgeois nationalism in the colony is regarded as a "movement" in its attitude toward imperialism, and in reality, there are uncompromising leftists and compromising rightists among them. And these two currents sometimes conflict because of the difference between compromise and non-compromise, and under this situation, it is considered very important to form a united front for socialists and non-compromise nationalists. However, it is also important that the left and right of bourgeois nationalism basically aim for capitalist modernization, advocate the ideology of nationalism, and have an anti-communist attitude. Fifth, the concept of 'nationalism' in the colony is understood as the ideology of the national liberation movement. Therefore, this is different from the concept of 'Bourgeois nationalism'. In other words, if you look at the bourgeois nationalist movement aiming for capitalist modernization and the labor-farm movement aiming for a socialist society broadly, it is considered to be included in the national liberation movement, and the ideology can be considered to be included in the category of 'nationalism'. Therefore, there may be "Bourgeois nationalism" and "socialist nationalism" among the colonial nationalism. In this case, compromised national improvementism falls into a subcategory of nationalism as a branch of bourgeois nationalism. In this regard, it is necessary to understand that Korean nationalism during the colonial period had more diverse contents. First of all, there are various factions, including compromisers who have advanced to self-government, cultural activists who oppose self-government, left-wing nationalists who insist on uncompromising political struggles, armed or terrorist tactics, and diplomats who value diplomatic movements. On the other hand, in terms of political ideology, there were various branches such as far-right conservative bourgeois democrats, guild socialism, Christian socialism, samgyllism, and neolationalism. Research on the nationalist movement is centered on the evaluation of the "cultural movement" and "autonomous movement" of the bourgeois nationalist right in the early 1920s, the background of the formation of the left-wing national front in the late 1920s, the nature of the nationalist. The opinions of the academic community on how to evaluate the "cultural movement" and "autonomous movement" of the bourgeois nationalist right are divided into two parts. On the one hand, it is believed that nationalists developed the spread of education, raising national consciousness through media organizations, a movement to protect national culture through research on Korean history and Korean language, and a movement for ethnic enterprises. From this point of view, it is evaluated that this movement was a mainstream movement to realize that independence was impossible immediately after diplomatic movement and independence war theory abroad and popular uprising theory at home was frustrated. On the other hand, the so-called "power-building theory" and "preparation theory" argued in this movement did not resist imperialist aggression, compromised with them, and gradually developed from the independence movement to the retreating autonomous movement. In the early 1930s, the cultural movements of bourgeois nationalists developed into the Joseon Studies Movement, the Historic Preservation Movement, the Texting Movement, the Benaro de Movement, and the Manchurian Redemption Movement. In particular, this cultural movement tends to emphasize 'nationalism', 'nationalism', and 'national culture', and there is a question of how to evaluate it. Until now, the mainstream of academia has highly praised this as the "National Culture Protection Movement" and the "Modern Enlightenment Movement." Although the movement recently redefined national uniqueness and subjectivity academically and ideologically to deepen awareness of national issues, it emphasized the "high nationality" and "national specificity" on the premise of excluding superficial political struggles. Meanwhile, the background of the nationalist left's active efforts to form a new organization has been discussed before, such as revitalizing the right's self-government movement and cooperative proposals by socialists. Recently, research on the ideas of the nationalist left has been conducted focusing on Ahn Jae-hong's "National Left Front Theory." Accordingly, Ahn Jae-hong established the Sobourjuage as the central force of the uncompromising national movement, and the Sobourjuage, which could not achieve sufficient class growth under the Japanese colonial rule, thought that a coalition of nationalists and socialists was needed. And Ahn Jae-hong said that based on this idea, he should first try to unite the "political avant-garde" centered on the intellectual class, and that it is too early to organize the base crowd such as workers and farmers and mobilize them. The class basis of the bourgeois nationalist movement emerged as an issue in domestic and foreign academia in the 1960s by calling it 'national improvementism' and developing disputes over its character and class basis. This debate between Heo Jang-man and Kim Hee-il was mainly related to the hierarchical basis of national improvementism. First, Heo Jang-man argues that the independence movement of nationalists in the 1920s was divided into three categories: left, right, and middle. In other words, "Left-wing nationalists who represented the interests of the lower class of the national bourgeoisie launched an independence movement, and right-wing nationalists who represented the interests of the upper (minority) leaned toward the reformist nationalist movement and took a compromise position. The middle class was influenced a lot by the upper class in the beginning, but after seeing the influence of the powerful anti-Japanese movement of the labor force and the betrayal of the upper class molecules, they gradually moved away from it and leaned toward the people's public." Heo Jang-man eventually cited Min Ho-sik's "New Japaneseism," which insisted on "one-in-one" as examples of the idea of subordinate bourgeoisie separately from national bourgeoisie, and the "New Japaneseism" in 1924. On the other hand, Kim Hee-il argues that the hierarchical basis of national improvementism is a subordinate bourgeoisie. He understood national improvementism as a product of imperialism policy rather than an intrinsic product of the national bourgeoisie itself. Kim Heeil said, "It's the indigenous people of Korea in the 1920s".Azis were divided into subordinate and ethnic parts, and the former was differentiated from the latter. If the ideological expression representing the former interests is national improvementism, the latter can be said to be nationalism." He argues that national bourgeoisie and nationalism have both sides of imperialism and revolution, and thus contain some anti-imperial elements, while subordinate bourgeoisie and folk improvementism have only one-sidedness against imperialism and revolution and compromise. The discussion of North Korean academia on the hierarchical basis of national improvementism was then largely organized in the direction of Kim Hee-il, and Kang Dong-jin, who conducted research in Japan, generally agreed with Kim Hee-il. However, these views on the hierarchical basis of national improvementism were not actually derived from the specific movement of 'national improvementism' or the analysis of individual 'national improvementists'. Recently, I suggested that the bourgeois nationalist right and Builbae should be distinguished from the bourgeois nationalist right and the latter should be obtained from the upper level of national capitalists and the parent family of subordinates in the 1920s. He also raised the opinion that the hierarchical basis of the bourgeois nationalist left should be found in the lower class of national capitalists and in Sobourjua.
On the other hand, Kim Yong-seop pointed out that there were measures for the national capitalist camp's landlord position and peasant position, and the socialist camp's peasant position in relation to the agricultural problem under the Japanese colonial rule. According to this, the national capitalist camp had a similar view as the Japanese colonial authorities on the issue of land ownership improvement, tenant farming legislation, agricultural land policy, and cooperative policy. These research results show that there were various ideas of the left and right even within nationalism.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기