There is a striking trend in the world today, whereby those who agree with socialism dislike the current reality and are attempting to lead society away from the free market, and for this they are considered progressive and left-wing.
On the other hand, those who pursue democracy based on the free market capitalist system are considered to be conservative and right-wing.
This trend stems from the class-based theory of Communism. Communists claim that the proletariat is the “good” class in which people long to live well, all together and far from egoism, while the bourgeoisie is the egocentric class in which people want only to live better than everyone else. By this they assert that the proletariat is progressive.
Therefore, they believe that transition to socialist society and shaking off the shackles of free market society are progressive.
However, it has been proven time and again in both theory and historical practice that transition from free market society to socialist society is not progressive but retrogressive.
To be sympathetic toward socialism while opposing the free market system and considering this trend to be progressive is a typical, anachronistic mistake.
Instead, progressive and conservative should be seen not from the perspective of class but from the perspective of human attributes. Human beings are both individualistic and simultaneously gregarious beings. Therefore, we carry both attributes.
Thus, to consider either individualism or communitarianism as the attribute of one class or the other is a mistake.
However, it is a fact that socialist society is based on communitarianism while free-market society is based on individualism. The proletariat class supports communitarianism while the bourgeoisie supports individualism. Yet this is a reflection of people’s interests, not an unchangeable attribute of humans.
In general, the proletariat contains those who are less competitive, so they have an interest in cooperation with others, opposing competition and living together without discrimination. Those who are more competitive tend to advance, while those less competitive want to develop slowly in cooperation with others.
From this perspective, then, competitive individuals actually have strong progressive tendencies, and communitarians who oppose rapid advancement have strong conservative tendencies.
In the past, socialist structures based on communitarianism produced poor societies which emphasized the unconditional harmony and cooperation of the social group while opposing the idea of a competitive society in which individuals could build on their creativeness. Suppressing individual freedoms, it resulted in a feudalistic dictatorship system.
To sum up, aiming for a socialist society and opposing the free market and democracy is one of the biggest elements of retrogression. However, do not think that means individualism is always good and communitarianism is completely bad.
The value of individualism and communitarianism can change according to the level of a society’s development or its conditions at any given time.
For instance, communitarian solidarity is much important during wartime, but during peace time, the diverse creativity of individuals is important.
Therefore, it is beneficial for social development that the advantages of individualism and communitarianism are combined as far as possible.
The individualistic and communitarian attributes of human beings cannot actually be divided up, so neither pure individualism nor pure communitarianism really exists.
Sometimes, elements of individualism hold the dominant position and at other times communitarian elements overwhelm a society. Current South Korean democracy is an individualistic form of democracy.
It should be developed and reformed anew to take advantage of both individualism and communitarianism.
Yet the combination of both also does not mean going down the middle-of-the-road.
Some have emphasized reconciliation and cooperation between North and South as one nation, and the need for reconciliation and cooperation with the Kim Jong Il dictatorship. This has blurred the confrontation between a democratic system and a dictatorship regime and paralyzed popular sentiment and notions of democracy.
There should be no such reconciliation or harmony with a dictatorship system that has killed millions of people.
The real key to overcoming the current political crisis is to take the democratic line of justice.
The democratic line of justice is not progressive, conservative, left-wing or right-wing. It is a fair line which meets commonly the needs of the people, social development, and global citizens.
