[Column] Progressives not pulling their weight

By Oh Chang-ik, director of Citizens’ Solidarity for Human Rights

The hamburger place across from our office recently started operating for 24 hours a day. The idea is probably that since they’ve rented the space and got a kitchen running, they might as well earn more by increasing their hours. And since they’re paying young people 3,100 won (US$3.30) an hour, it’s not like the labor is costing them much. It’s a joy to be able to have a hamburger whenever I want. But the luxury I’m enjoying is the result of some family’s young person being up all night rubbing his eyes to earn 3,100 won per hour.

Recently I stopped by a gomtang house. It was way past lunch hour and yet business was so good there was a line outside. Nevertheless, the place closes at 4 p.m. They say it’s because they have to get ready for the next day and everyone needs to take a break. They could make a lot of money off an evening shift, all the more by selling alcohol, and yet they close early. They also have a lot of employees for the size of the establishment, though they could just as easily make fewer people work harder and use part-time students at low wages. It’s an unusual scene, seeing a restaurant spend more on labor while operating for shorter hours each day.

It’s a rarity these days for an establishment to place more value on quality and enough rest for your staff, however nice it is to earn money. The problem, though, is that humane treatment depends entirely on a business owner’s determination to do good. Like the words in the song by Yi Ji-sang, it means having to depend on the good intentions of individuals in a world where people just aren’t good enough.

What is needed, then, is a form of regulation for the public good. There are many who consider property rights something sacred and untouchable, but Article 23 of our constitution stipulates that exercising property rights must be consistent with the welfare of the public. This is why you should not be able to pursue profit while violating the basic rights of student workers. Unfortunately, Article 23 is a typical example of a law that is as good as dead, just as is the case with Article 119, which calls for market control and economic democracy.

There is no system in place to protect those who are having their rights abused because they have little money. "Making the country a good place to do business" is the latest political slogan, but desperate calls for the ability to live like human beings are usually ignored. The mood is such that common sense demands for water, electricity, medicine, housing, education, and law to all be public property are considered bizarre leftist outbursts.

The stronger the harsh, reactionary winds that determine everything on the basis of money, the greater a role there is for progressives to play, because they have been entrusted to hold the flag of the public good and solidarity and fight the greedy market. Lately, however, everywhere I see reason to believe that maybe progressive forces really are in a state of crisis. There is "cyber progressivism," which amounts to hollow words posted on Internet bulletin boards and has no interest at all in pursuing the public good and solidarity. Then there are the repeated conflicts between factions that have no clear point of argument and seem to depend more on the fact that everyone knows everyone else’s business in the progressive activist community.

Expanding the frame of issues to be confronted for the sake of the public good is about sharing information and work, even if it means a little inconvenience in the short run. But doing so is a humanistic and moral imperative. Since the struggle at hand is a fight against those who already possess all the resources, however, there are cases when playing nice is not enough. There are also cases when those speaking up against oppression have ethical problems themselves. Too often you have someone saying something that is right, but what he says is unconvincing because people can’t stand the messenger. Generally, progressive forces are considered and expected to be more ethical than those in the conservative camp, but it’s doubtful they could really be considered moral when held up to strict universal standards.

Problems always arise when the structure of things needs to change in order to reach a solution, but clearly there are roles each individual needs to be performing in the course of changing things. In this new year, here’s one thing I’d like to hear people say more often: "There’s something different about those progressives. Might they be worth listening to more carefully?"

Please direct questions or comments to [[e-mail]]