The bourgeois economics of South Korea
On YouTube, a couple of videos have the topic of the Korean economy and its growth. The message is usually along the lines of how hard work, determination, and toil brought success and prosperity to a downtrodden country ravaged by the Korean War and intense political instability. The ‘Miracle on the Han River’ was enacted by Park Chung-hee, the dictator who used statist methods to encourage the rise of major conglomerates such as Samsung and Hyundai, and suppressed labour laws as part of his far-right governance. These conglomerates came to be known as Chaebols, with chae meaning wealth or property and beol meaning faction or clan. The Chaebols became the bourgeoisie and the directors of the Korean economy, hence the bourgeois economics of South Korea.
Economic growth was achieved according to the indexes of GDP, the Korean economy grew a tremendous amount with the rate ranging from 8% to 20% between the 1960s and early 2000s. This made the country labelled as advanced and considered a member of the Four Asian Tigers (a rapidly growing Asian economy alongside Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan). However, the admiration of the country is through the lens of political economics that ignores the rights and needs of the public. As much as this era of economic growth improved livelihoods through the increased supply of housing, jobs, and infrastructure; it was also an era of profound suffering for working class people as labour unions were repressed, women lived in a rigid patriarchal system, and widespread torture and oppression took place against pro-democracy activists. Even after nominal democratisation in 1987, the suffering didn’t stop.
Chaebol dominance was exacerbated yet again after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis when the Korean economy was hit especially hard. Rather than eliminating structural issues such as corruption and problematic financial behaviour by Chaebols, the government launched a campaign of gold collection to fund banks so they could repay foreign debt and didn’t dismantle the economic system. The Korean economy became another colony of IMF neoliberalism, as Chaebols being tasked with recovering the national economy led to them holding most of the national wealth, and companies were sold off to American firms. Currently, Chaebol firms account for approximately 80% of Korea’s GDP.
On paper, through economic analysis, the Chaebol are the major contributors to Korea’s global prominence and the assumed wealth of Koreans. However, as much as the big bosses of Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and others set company directions and strategised the mass generation of wealth; it’s the workers who toiled in unsafe working conditions to build the infrastructure in which Koreans live today. The Chaebol also enforce awful conditions on both the working and middle class, has the backing of the politicians, and infects every facet of Korean society.
The middle class and its subset the professional-managerial class are also not immune from oppressive cultures and practices imposed by the corporate elites. Such as the work week that consisted of 68 hours until it was cut by former president Moon Jae-in to 52 hours, in response to the country’s unhealthy culture of working excessively. Overtime pay is also uncommon as a survey found that 59% of respondents weren’t paid despite the excess work. This culture of excessive work is a major contributor to the suicide mortality rate in Korea and workplace accidents. To make things worse, the frequency of workplace sexual harassment was tolerated by complacent Chaebol leaders, even though the vast majority of Korean women have reported being harassed. This is paired with the hostile approach towards labour unions, supporting the imprisonment of union members, heavy restrictions on striking and encouraging the persecution of unions. The result is a combined system of oppression through means of depression and lawfare, to control any workers. Social mobility is also low, as the gap between those with high income and low income widens, keeping lower-class individuals at a distance.
The incorporation of Chaebols in almost every facet of society likewise enhances this grip on Korean livelihoods. Conglomerates like Samsung, Hyundai, and LG don’t just create electronics and cars, they also build apartments and provide life insurance and telecommunication services. It is impossible to escape any Chaebol influence, even for those outside of the workforce.
Yet, Korean democracy upholds this Chaebol dominance and ignores the working people who materialised the reality Koreans live in. A majority of Koreans have positive opinions of the Park Chung-hee regime and genuine left-wing political parties struggle to enter the National Assembly (Korea’s parliament). The incumbent president Yoon Suk-yeol was open about his admiration for Milton Friedman (a major neoliberal thinker) and campaigned with commitment towards economic liberalism. His presidency also saw chauvinistic attitudes towards workers, stating that people should be allowed to work 120 hours a week and vetoing pro-union legislation. Even though the 120-hour work-week isn’t likely to be implemented, plans for a 69-hour work-week are now being touted, showing the sheer commitment Yoon has to be inconsiderate towards workers.
Another problem is institutional corruption, as Chaebol leaders are supported by the public and judges even when convicted in a court of law. Lee Jae-yong, the Chairman of the Samsung Conglomerate, is a convicted felon who bribed former president Park Geun-hye (who was impeached) and embezzled company funds, undermining Korean democracy and the integrity of civil society. Still, he was given a light sentence of 5 years and recently pardoned by President Yoon. Judges themselves have handed out light or suspended sentences on grounds of how “the economy might suffer” according to Professor Lee Yoon-kyung. Even the Korean public backed the pardon at a rate of 70%, as the myth is that if Samsung does well then Korea does well.
When a Chaebol leader is convicted of corruption there is a flock in support, because they are contributors to the “economy”. Conversely, when a union goes on strike to protest against anti-labour injustice, the issue is divisive for the general public. A 2021 survey by the Korea Institue for Public Administration showed that public confidence in labour unions was 48%, lower than big corporations. Yoon himself said, “Labour unions clinging to their vested rights are tantamount to acts of plunder, depriving young generations of future opportunities and hopes”. This comes with the refusal to enhance the right to strike and collective bargaining, while ignoring the blatant exploitation of workers conducted by the Chaebol.
This lengthy picture of the bourgeois economics of Korea shows that the Chaebol have replaced the aristocracy of prior dynasties and state institutions are allied with them. The result is a new abusive social class of the ultra-rich, a constantly exploited middle class and working class, and the pillars that uphold the capitalist economy strengthening each year.
Nevertheless, the argument based on economics is raised whenever the fight for enriching labour rights and anti-Chaebol attitudes take the spotlight. The problem with the arguments that utilise the concept of economics, and more specifically economic growth, is that they are flawed at their core. Those who raise the importance of “growth” are the bourgeois conglomerates, corrupt politicians, and the manipulated masses, all with conflicts of interest that don’t endure the pains of parasitic capitalism. All the corruption and mass exploitation raise the question: are the bourgeois economics of South Korea not just ethical but also ideal for Koreans?
Not a single one of the politicians in Korea who argues for the maintenance of the hyper-liberal economic order showcases an understanding of working-class concerns. Even if they try to look like they do, it doesn’t change the fact that they subscribed to the system of economic oppression. An example is President Yoon Suk-yeol himself, who regularly uses economic arguments to excuse his anti-labour rhetoric as if Korea doesn’t have one of the worst labour rights in the developed world. For elitists like Yoon, economics are simply earplugs that mute the screams of workers and a tool used to abuse those beneath them.
Economic liberalism additionally uses hysterical red-baiting and anti-communist attitudes. Right-wing newspapers such as the Chosun Ilbo accuse liberal politicians who attempted to pass regulatory legislation of trying to “ruin Korea”, and label Samsung as an “excellent company”. Such mindsets are echoed by the main conservative People Power Party (PPP), which accuses the liberal Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) of being a “left dictatorship” and passing anti-Korean leftist policies. To reiterate, these accusations are against the liberal party that seeks to maintain a social market economy within a wider capitalist system. Former liberal president Moon Jae-in also didn’t pursue any major dismantling of anti-conglomerate policies, but at least he can be credited with trying to reign them in.
Korean economic success wasn’t delivered through the respectable genius of Chaebols; it was the massive socio-political machine developed by corrupt far-right dictatorial forces that utilised fearmongering against leftist politics and manipulation of the public to build an oligarchic framework that pervades society. This machine, fueled by practically unconditional capitalism successfully prevented the mass mobilisation of democratic forces against the undemocratic dominance of the Chaebol elite and the conservative politicians that support them.
Exacerbating this already unfortunate situation, Korea’s draconian Confucian social structure married capitalism to worsen the depression experienced by Koreans. This created an even worse beast, the parasite that feeds off of the oppressed citizens, coinciding with what cultural theorist Mark Fisher wrote in his book Capitalist Realism: “Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire and zombie maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labour is ours, and the zombies it makes are us.”.
That is the bourgeois economics of South Korea. A culmination of manipulating the masses to reject reality and revere injustice, diluting reality into lines on a graph, and enforcing mass ignorance towards those left behind by capitalist economics. Its achievements are most frightening because the sheer adherence to this method of thinking is theological as deviants from this mindset are deemed to be delusional.
Lessons from the capitalist theology of the Korean bourgeoisie are as such:
Firstly, concepts of hard-working people and families must not be romanticised. Any romanticisation by liberal economic theorists or the bourgeois is the gentrification of workers’ struggles. The hardworking populace deserves respect for enduring suffocating capitalism, but the condition of suffering does not. Celebration of toil within extreme capitalism mainly serves marketing purposes, as the tradition of hard work in Korean society is played up as beneficial when in reality it causes mass depression and dependency on consumerist hedonism. The term “Hell Joseon” was developed by young Koreans in 2015 for a reason, because modern Korea made the new generation hopeless with no dreams bound to be fulfilled. Hard work can be a cause for celebration but not through the lens of bourgeois economics because it’s an agent of manipulating workers and the wider public, while the bourgeois elites enjoy their stratified power.
Secondly, even if bourgeois economics are here to stay, the left and the masses must mobilise to use all available techniques to make their conditions more liveable. Korean democracy was and is undermined, but a democratic framework exists nonetheless. This means unions must not be fazed by elitist oppression, and continue their determined efforts of striking and protesting to oppose the Yoon presidency and its Chaebol puppeteers. Labour rights also need to be strengthened, with improved working conditions, changes in culture, and acceptance that workers contribute as much if not more to the Korean economy than Chaebol aristocrats.
Thirdly, a historical lesson on the reality of the Miracle on the Han River, of how it isn’t just about the massive economic growth. The Miracle encompassed those left behind: the working class labourers, the homeless forced into slave labour, poor families that were neglected, and activists that were tortured and raped. Anyone wealthy enough to boast about the successes of the Korean economy is not preaching intellectual thought; they are imposing an arrogant perspective fuelled by ignorance because they were lucky enough to benefit from bourgeois economics.
This is only an analysis of Korean bourgeois economics, but with any insight into most developed countries with rigorous capitalism, parallels become clear. The 1997 Asian financial crisis upholding Chaebol dominance instead of dismantling it, is akin to how the 2007–2008 financial crisis led to Western governments bailing out the banks instead of acknowledging the problem were the banks themselves; neoliberalism encouraged by both Western liberals and conservatives reinforced bourgeois-directed economic structures; depression in South Korea is not a foreign concept when looking at the rise in depression in a neoliberal Britain; and the homelessness crisis in the developed world is proof enough of how people are left behind at a massive scale under bourgeois economics.
The final lesson is that rather than collective consciousness focusing solely on possible alleviations of suffering, it should be redirected towards discussing how to eliminate suffering itself. The graphs and indexes of economics may be powerful, but when all it does is portray the most flawed depiction of reality, it’s time to consider trying to develop alternate systems that automatically exclude social injustice instead of incorporating social injustice into the system itself.
True change begins in the conscience, and as impossible as it may seem to take down the parasite engineered by bourgeois economics, the collective desire to be emancipated from it must awaken. Class consciousness and unfiltered interpretation of reality prove that the system of bourgeois economics is not something to uphold, in fact, it is the ultimate enemy of genuine prosperity.
