Throughout May, banners of the Democratic Party proclaiming the spirit of Gwangju and the spirit of Roh Moo-hyun were plastered wherever they went. And next to it, a banner of the power of the people mocking the suspicion of money envelopes at the Democratic National Convention and the controversy over congressman Kim Nam-guk’s coin investment stuck like a leech. I was just passing through that street, but I suffered all through May. My head seemed to be split in two due to the discrepancy between the slogan appealing for the Democratic Party’s utopia and the present reality. I was ashamed of the confidence that only the Democratic Party of Korea inherited the spirit of Gwangju and the spirit of Roh Moo-hyun no matter what it looks like now.
It was awkward, like trying to put on luxury color cosmetics with swelling from not washing for three months and ten days. Those cosmetics seemed to accentuate the current ugliness even more. However, everyone seemed to think that it would be covered up by taking some pictures and applying it. Even though it seems like we have to pay for the spirit of May and the spirit of Roh Moo-hyun. Soon, the banners of the Democratic Party that will succeed the 6.10 Democratic Uprising and the 6.15 Joint Declaration will probably be plastered on the streets. bet 500 won
These days, the buzzword around the Democratic Party is ‘coin investment itself is not a problem’. The back story follows that it was wrong to make a transaction during the standing committee meeting, that it was wrong to report property, or that he was not able to concentrate on his work because he was so absorbed in investment. It is a story trying to define what Rep. Kim Nam-guk did wrong, but somehow it sounds like an excuse rather than reflection and introspection. The Democratic Party also wants to thoroughly reflect on its own. However, even though Rep. Kim Nam-guk even resigned from the party and agreed to file a complaint with the Ethics Committee of the National Assembly, the message of reflection is not accepted. Despite the decision to include virtual assets in the disclosure of members of the National Assembly, few people seem to believe that the Democratic Party has really changed. There is no public opinion effect, and the dispute over why the party is attacking Rep. Kim Nam-guk only grows.
Why can’t we reflect? Why did our self-reflection, like the shepherd boy’s lie or the alert sent by Mayor Oh Se-hoon, make no one believe it? Criticism of Kim Nam-guk’s coin investment is mixed on several levels. The level of public disappointment and anger lies much deeper than the level at which the Democratic Party makes excuses and apologizes for this issue. First, let’s analyze the layers of this case.
Ordinary people’s greed is condemned and they benefit
Rep. Kim Nam-guk’s personal dishonesty is the lowest level in this case. It is wrong to make a transaction at the time of the standing committee meeting or to omit it because it is not subject to property reporting, but it may be a problem that can be passed on as an apology. As Rep. Woo Sang-ho pointed out, “it is not an issue that requires resignation as a member of the legislature,” and it can be said that it is “a suspicion of personality murder without providing clear grounds.”
On the floor below that, there is a suspicion that Rep. Kim Nam-guk committed illegal corruption. It is said that he obtained inside information or the coin itself illegally, and in return made legislation favorable to the coin industry. If true, it would be a very big crime, but there is no clear evidence yet. Of course, extremely risky investment patterns or high returns are suspicious, but the coin market during the corona period was so crazy that there were so many people who fearlessly invested with the heart of the beast, among them people who once made astronomical profits. is not rare, so it is not easy to say that it is evidence of illegality in itself.
Up to this point, there is a difference in severity, but anyway, it is an individual problem for Rep. Kim Nam-guk. It’s a problem that will end if Kim Nam-guk says he didn’t know this would happen and whether he hits Honey Bam or expels him depending on the severity. But the final boss at the deepest level is about the identity and accountability of the Democratic Party. At this layer is the disillusionment with the uncertain stance of neoliberalism and financial capitalism that the Democratic Party has been churning over the past 30 years. And behind that uncertain stance lies a widely shared suspicion that only the social elite, such as members of the National Assembly, will benefit while morally condemning the greed of ordinary people. The suspicion of coin investment by Rep. Kim Nam-guk, who was a commoner and rather lacking in economic skills, is the decisive evidence that confirmed these suspicions as fact.
How do Democrats, especially 86s, stand on the neoliberal ethic that celebrates self-improvement and the desire to have more? What position has the Democratic Party shown, and what position should it show against neoliberalism, which destroys everything necessary for the community to be maintained in the long run in order to have more right now, and calls those who cannot participate in it as incompetent? Even with the economic achievements of neoliberalism fading away, we do not know the position of the Democratic Party and its mainstream 86 until now, when only evil hatred and more destructive ultra-high risk investments are left looking for reasons not to treat each other.
86, indifferent to socio-economic issues, the Democratic Party where 86 became the mainstream
This problem is older than you think. The student movement, which was at its peak from the mid-late 1980s to the early 1990s, suffered a sharp decline in the early-mid 1990s. As institutional democracy was established, the people gradually focused on reflecting their desires through elections. With the inauguration of the civilian government in 1993, the area for student movements to fight outside of representative democracy was extremely reduced. Internationally, following German reunification in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the downfall of real socialism became clear. With the establishment of diplomatic ties between Korea and the Soviet Union in September 1990 and between Korea and China in August 1992, Korean society also began to break free from the Cold War order. Since 1992, when North Korea, which felt severe anxiety over the existence of the regime following the collapse of socialism, started developing nuclear weapons in earnest, inter-Korean relations rapidly cooled.
Leaders of the 86 Movement experienced this ‘time of great setback’ and entered institutional politics en masse. Even in institutional politics, they did not abandon the goal of resolving the fundamental contradiction of our society. However, after democratization and post-Cold War, their political goals have become very dumb. Very abstract and ambiguous concepts such as people, human beings, and justice are taking the place of specific political purposes. 86 seems to move with their own clear direction, but it seems very vague what that goal is.
“I entered politics in 1999 as the founding promoter of the Millennium Democratic Party. My closest friends were most concerned and criticized. However, it cannot be denied that Lee In-young of 1987 and now is one person. The passion and sincerity that stood in front of City Hall in 1987 are still unwavering. Until I find my dignified role in politics, I will never give up. ” (Lee In-young, <나의 꿈 나의 노래>Erum, 2007. p.67)
“We had a dream. That grand dream to change reality has partially come true. In fact, it is dying. I have always dreamed of a just and clean society. At that time, I said it out of habit. Let’s not pass this kind of society on to our children. A world where we have to plan protests in dark alcoves, away from the eyes of the police, on tear gas-stained streets. Let’s not pass on a world where people have to howl like beasts in the movie, a world where they are taken to prison and make their parents cry in court. I still want to create a clear and clean world.” (Sangho Woo, <촌놈>Dumulmeori, 2004. p. 269)
The logics of Lee In-young and Sang-ho Woo Sang-ho, who talk about why they should become politicians themselves, are remarkably similar. Lee In-young calls them ‘a mature individual and a warm community’, while Woo Sang-ho calls them a ‘just and clean society’. Is there any politician who wants an immature, unjust, cold and dirty society? Their desire to monopolize a beautiful but abstract concept language has become a high barrier that prevents voters who disagree with them from turning their minds. What replaced the vagueness of the goal was self-confidence. They believed themselves to be the ones who took on an important role in national history.
“Even though each of us is somewhat imperfect and the future is very uncertain, I would like to emphasize again that the history of the 386 as a public and the 386 as a living person is very optimistic and has a vision. Because we are the third generation of the democratization movement, This is because they are the 1st generation of the movement and will become the 1st generation of unification by achieving unification in our day.So, for the path of more peace and welfare, we walk the path of the Jeondaehyeopin, who sincerely strive, work diligently, and serve with all our heart. I have to go.” (Lee In-young, <촌놈>page 205)
The politics of the 86s, who replaced ambiguous vision with self-confidence, was particularly notable for their incompetence and indifference to socio-economic issues. The 1990s was a time when the neoliberal changes that started in the UK and the US in the 1980s were expanding all over the world. In particular, in Korea, neoliberal change and escaping from the state-controlled economy of dictatorships were simultaneously progressing. Neo-liberal changes began in earnest after the Asian financial crisis, but even President Kim Young-sam insisted on ‘globalization’ and promoted the improvement of the constitution of the Korean economy.
“It is no longer possible or desirable to identify the development stage of Korean capitalism as an extension of the existing debate on social formation. The logical mechanism of the destruction of power and the construction of a new one has now lost its usefulness as a theoretical weapon (omitted) The so-called lawful development of capitalism and the logic of its inevitable extinction have lost their function as our compass and map (omitted). We need to structurally diagnose this phenomenon and come up with a new epistemology to find a new solution. I want to see you.” (Lee In-young, <촌놈> page 189)
The biggest conflict in Korean society over the past 30 years, when 86 people were active in institutional politics, was the action and reaction of neoliberal policies. On this issue, the 86’s generally had no clear position other than that there should be a minimum safety net for those who ultimately drop out of the competition. Of course, this is a confusion that liberal parties around the world had to go through to some extent at this time, and it was not a problem unique to the Democratic Party of Korea. However, in particular, the 86’s, who had to constantly suffer from criticism as ‘Reds’, were in a situation where they had to prove how moderate they were. Moreover, 86 itself failed in the end to integrate the self divided by the desire for transformation and the neoliberal practice. The more they failed to intervene in key socio-economic conflicts, the more they became attached to the democratic-anti-democratic front.
Let’s go back to the story of Representative Kim Nam-guk. In 2023, what does it mean to earn hundreds of millions or billions of coins investment? Does that mean you’re just super smart and lucky? It’s just a little, no, it hurts a lot, but is it something that can’t be criticized?
While the world is experiencing an economic downturn due to the corona, on the other hand, the coin craze also blew fiercely. The real economy and the asset market moved in completely opposite directions. Before the corona, there were already warning lights that there was too much currency around the world, but the economic downturn caused by the corona forced governments to release more currency into the market. It is not a problem yesterday or today that assets such as real estate, stocks, and raw materials have prices that have nothing to do with the needs of the real economy and have become part of the independent financial investment market, but the overflowing money in the market has no connection to the real world at all. Even virtual assets such as coins and NFTs that do not exist have skyrocketed their prices. Finally, a financial market has emerged that trades products that cannot be exchanged for products that have no demand in real life.
Blockchain, more narrowly, the use of cryptocurrency technology may be more useful, but in the real coin market, no one buys or sells coins because of this technical use. The coin investment board, roughly speaking, has become a huge and global thin rock board. Many became rich by accident, but many more than that became beggars. In a world full of people who have already formed such a market and claim that it is a very smart investment, it may not be wrong for an individual to make an ultra-high risk investment. As someone said, it might be said that only those who have no desire should throw stones.
But what if you’re a Democrat politician? In order for Rep. Kim Nam-guk’s investment to return returns several times or dozens of times as expected, several dozens of people must be disgraced. There must be much more frustration, social unrest, crime, and increased instability of the national economy in one person’s happy ending in this sloppy game of pure money that has nothing to do with the growth of the real economy. Still, isn’t it really a problem for Democratic politicians to invest in ultra-high-risk coins? The answer will depend on what kind of society the Democrats want to create. It is this point that is really difficult. Since this standard is ambiguous and blurry, it will be really difficult for us to reflect on the Kim Nam-guk Coin incident.
