Social and political view

Sometimes while talking with people, I find one of the typical social problems that I perceive very severe, and which I am also not free from (and am trying to overcome) all the time.  

Simply put it, some people have become victims of the socially agitated and inculcated emotion, hatred. 

They express hatred against certain political ideas, groups and people.   

But in my eyes, they do not know why they hate them, although they try to explain the reasons of their hatred.  

Most of their grounds for such thoughts are based on news reports of media and their own personal experiences. 

The reality is that they are caught up with the framework of certain social or political views which encourage them to hate part of society. 

1. 

For humans, persons whom they dislike, are evil. 

This irrational and emotional bias exists all the time in humans' minds. 

Exactly the same event (a person's act) can be interpreted in completely opposing ways and can arouse completely opposing emotions to different groups of people. 

As psychology and human history shows, people have a strong tendency of collective thinking.  

We are so easily agitated by media and rumors, which tend to produce only fragmented information and one-sided story. 

How many people hold their social or political view firmly on the ground of rational thinking? 

Are we skeptic enough to resist against popular beliefs and biased arguments?

It seems that a majority of people are not interested in fundamental, philosophical and historical subjects. 

I have hardly seen anyone who read academic literature (journal articles or monographs in any areas including humanities or social sciences). 

Actually many people even don't tell the difference between academic literature and (pure) literature.

Or they hardly have any experience of reading the former since their graduation from university.  

 

When people say that they read books, those books are mostly novels, essays or poem. 

But these cannot give people rational foundation for social view, often rather contributing to amplifying social hatred. 

Actually many people even don't read such books. 

They just feed their political view largely from news articles and comments. 

It is no wonder that so many people spend their time chatting political gossips with their colleagues or friends holding similar views.  

But such conversation can hardly be open and inclusive. 

Even though they say 'we', the 'we' means an exclusive group who shares the similar ideas. 

Most of such communication serves nothing more than the feeling of intimacy. 

The problem is the result of such a situation. 

It would be okay if what they share is a positive attitude towards society. 

But very often it is hatred against other groups of people in society, especially in terms of political matter. 

It would be worth mentioning that all politicians say are nothing but 'Vote me, not him', and all the media says are nothing but 'He is bad (corrupt, incapable, racist, sexist, too tolerant, not tolerant, having bad ancestors, having bad relatives, having bad friends ... whatever) and let me tell you how bad he is'. 

There is an English joke about media that says: evening news is the news that begins 'good evening' and tells why it isn't. 

It is a matter of time that people fall victim to social hatred against certain target groups, as long as the people don't have their own ground to resist against those inculcating propaganda.

The result of the shared hatred can lead to social bullying. 

2. 

Religion, socialism and nationalism all have a similar feature. 

Although depending on the degree of orthodoxy, they all try to persuade or indoctrinate us to love and hate (or respect and contempt). 

Especially religion and socialism have positive functions and negative functions to society at the same time in relation to that feature, like a double edged sword. 

Religion in history has been nearly always exploited by politicians. 

Some preachers or clergy men enjoyed high status and even seemed to influence politicians (kings and aristocracy in history). 

But the truth was that they were just a tool for politicians to effectively create coercive and collective emotions. 

Some religions in modern countries have become free from such political exploitation but extremely unpopular, while others still popular (dominant), but being exploited by politics. 

Actually today in South Korea what I feel problematic is socialism and nationalism.  

3.

Socialism also cannot exist alone without such emotions like hatred and love.

At its fundamental level, socialism applied the old rhetoric of slave or peasant society to commercialised and industrialised society. 

The core element is to divide society into 'those who have property' and 'those who don't have property', and it tries to redistribute property. 

But in order to effect that, compulsion is necessary to continuously oppress the possession of property. 

This is why socialism has to continually make regulations, or just simply (or more effectively) results in autocracy.

However, the more critical point is that socialism does not only likely to end up in autocracy, but also has to make people hate 'those who have property'. 

It creates the social image in which 'those who have property' look evil and deserved to be deprived of their property. 

In a sense, the doctrine sounds not so much similar salvational teachings of the messiahs in religion as social hygiene and eugenic schemes of the early 20th century, both of which collectively and socially pursued a mental or physical perfection.  

In other words, the doctrine seems to define people who deserves love and people who deserves hatred. 

One of the reasons why we have to hate capitalist businessmen in the market, socialism implies, is that 'those who have property' not only have property but are also associated with political power as well, which is the main cause of social corruption in modern society.  

I agree that compulsory regulations of the market are, to a certain extent, necessary to prevent corruption, control human greed and protect the vulnerable. Moreover I always support environmental regulations to the fullest extent.  

However, once political intention goes beyond the level of maintaining the stability and predictability of the market under the rule of law, then the cost is usually beyond our expectation.  

Imagine that If a politician tries to regulate the economic market with a really good intention.

In reality, he cannot work alone, and his political policy should facilitate regulatory institutions and workforce. 

Actually what he has to control (or fight against) is not only the market but also such national institutions, which were the Achilles tendon in Korean history.  

And there are much more unexpected adverse results that are caused by governmental intervention, and thus the social expenditure usually surpasses the intended benefits.

The egalitarian fantasy, which socialists pursue, may be necessary and is an essential element in human nature. 

However forceful ways of achieving it always brought 'hell' instead of 'utopia' in history. 

Still today, by such a fantasy, those who resisted against agendas such as social justice, economic equality and universal welfare are regarded as nothing but protectors of the modern ancient regime, that is capitalism.     

Many people usually believe that it is righteous to dispel, kill or destroy corrupt politicians (particularly rightists) and capitalists (particularly big company owners). 

Would it be really true that kicking them out can make society better? 

4. 

While studying the 19th century British history, I found that Western socialists fail to understand why many Asian countries during the same period remained in such a poor and severely corrupt state as Joseon did. 

The gap between Western and Asian countries in intellectual activities and moral aspiration is so strikingly clear that I couldn't help thinking about why in the late 19th century Joseon fell to such a miserable state while Britain rose to such a prosperous state.

Likewise, it seems that most South Koreans do not understand why the Western states reached such an advanced level domestically in nearly all aspects of intellectual and moral activities. 

South Koreans do not know the enthusiastic social reform movements in 19th century Britain. 

For hundreds of years until the late 19th century (roughly the 1870s), during which Britain evolved to a commercial and industrial state, its central government was very weak and state intervention to the market was extremely limited. 

Through the flourishing popular publishing markets, the increasing mass of the reading public driven by the affluent middle classes was inspired to make their society more moral and intelligent. 

This enthusiasm for morality and intelligence was exactly the main impetus that drove British to proceed constant institutional reform and to fight against corruption.  

Morality and intelligence in society could develop only when the more individual persons freely sought after self-improvement, not by collective bullying, expelling, or killing those who deserved 'hatred'. 

The things that South Korean students are taught about British modern history are, except for the steam engine, deliberately limited to the aggressive imperial ambition and the hardship of their own working classes in the miserable conditions. 

Like media, history text books are one of the most efficient tools for political propaganda. 

It is no wonder that the only emotion that South Koreans learn from such text books is hatred towards Japan, which followed the foot steps of such empires and invaded Korea, and hatred towards capitalism which is taught to have caused in the first place all such tragedy.

This way, successfully South Koreans learn 'half' lessons from history. 

Historians know that history is always political, no matter what their research interest is, from politicians' biographies and war history to social history and medical history. 

What kind of values did Joseon pursue, while Britain was building social and intellectual structures with the principle of individual liberty? 

5.

Confucianism was religious and socialistic. 

It not only regulated (actually suppressed) any economic activities, encouraging only agriculture, but also regarded people who pursued property as evil. 

Money was an evil thing in Confucian self-sufficient society. 

Then why such a righteous and strictly regulated society ironically fell to such a severely poor and corrupt state?

The most important national and social institutions, notably three Jeong (田政, 軍政, 還政), became completely corrupt by the late 19th century and drove the peasants' lives to a real hell. 

How did the national tax and conscription systems and social welfare system bring hell to the 19th century Joseon? 

Legal protection for private property was terribly weak.  

Confucian social values were held superior to individual values.    

I don't feel it necessary to write any more, as I wrote earlier on the topic of 'institutional reform'. 

I just feel uncomfortable whenever confronting the polarised concept of good vs bad or right vs evil, fundamentally placed in Confucianism. 

And there was little tolerance to bad and evil. 

Without election (the political market system) by which voters can choose political parties to lead, contenders in political disputes kept being killed by the other side. 

The king was just a person who had no option but to order poison to those to be killed in the battle. 

6. 

In my view, social problems in modern society have been solved principally in two ways based on different approaches; individualism and collectivism.  

The former view considers lack of individual responsibility as the main cause of social problems, thus focusing on self-improvement in competition of the market. 

The latter view holds that social problems are caused by lack of social justice, so arguing for governmental regulation enacted by political power that can compel the regulatory measures. 

The former leads to the attitude that 'I' am the start and end of a problem, thus 'I' should fight against the irrational and destructive tendency within 'myself'. Therefore, what is important is the rule of law, which guarantees stable and predictable conditions, in which each person can make decisions and efforts for their own improvement. 

The latter argues that 'they' who are irrational and destructive are problems and 'we' who are moral and intelligent can solve the problems by regulating and controlling 'them'. For this end, it is important to choose moral and intelligent politicians who can take the leadership and exert political power to solve the problems (control 'them') on behalf of 'us'.  

It is up to the mind of its members which approach a society would take. 

© 2016 Min Bae