5 ms·

One of the most interesting culture in South korea is that under treated low class people (dirt-spoon class) don't really try disrupt current society model. To

One of the most interesting culture in South korea is that under treated low class people (dirt-spoon class) don't really try disrupt current society model. To elaborate, people put poverty on their own responsibility rather than complaining about structural inequality. The rage towards class inequality is emitted at competition for higher ranked university and the reward of being in a prestigious college.

solveit 7y ago
It helps that socialism is a much dirtier word in Korea, courtesy of history with a certain northern neighbour.
- rchaud 7y ago
  Is it? "Socialism" and "Communism" are used interchangeably in American politcal discourse as a blunt way to distinguish between democracy and capitalism versus dictatorship and collectivism. South Korea itself was a dictatorship until the late 1980s and received preferential treatment in trade talks in the cold war era with Western economies due to their unique role as a buffer against Communist expansion. This level of privileged access would not be available to less strategically important countries in a 'free market'. Plus SK already provides a level of socialist services that a failed state like North Korea can only dream of.
barry-cotter 7y ago
Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans. The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one. We have one historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti, and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK, whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.
- watwut 7y ago
  I think that you are simplifying those events quite a lot. The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. That is involvement and engagement in politics. The actual bottom is despised by everyone and comes with host of social problems. One of massive sparks for these political groups is fear that I will become part of the bottom. Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the bottom is passive. Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was because they were active.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it. A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée. The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
    - watwut 7y ago
      You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others. Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners. French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one. And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.
dba7dba 7y ago
In my opinion, S. Korea has less visible rage against inequality because of the Japanese colonialism, Korean War and the fast development of the economy since 1970s. For 500+ years before Japan occupied Korean peninsula in 1910, Korea had a strict social class system. Class inequality was very firmly in place. But most accepted it as a natural order, as any society with kings in ruling. All those social classes were broken down with the Japanese colonialism and the Korean War. Especially the Korean War. The Korean war basically wiped out overnight a large chunk of the landed rich. The society was turned upside down. It was a true leveling of the playing field. I'd say from end of the Korean War (or maybe even starting in 1910), those who rose above others in wealth largely did so on their own. The old money/wealth lost wealth and had none for the children to inherit. Obviously some cheated (or hacked their way in techie term) to get above. Others worked honestly and did well on test and in job to get above. So there's less decades/centuries old wealthy class passing down their wealth to their kids.
fiblye 7y ago
That dream get crushed when universities start increasingly accepting students through connections and children of graduates. Getting major urban schools is much harder as a rural kid with a 4.0 GPA than a kid from nearby with the same GPA and parents who attended and donated to the school a few times. I think Americans are more pissed off because there's been more to make people aware of the long term and growing unfairness.
- robotnikman 7y ago
  People do seem to forget how much a privileged upbringing can be a factor in terms of what university someone goes to and their job prospects once they have graduated. I've met software engineers who graduated from prestigious universities who were no more smarter than someone who learned programming and graduated from their local community college. Its more of who you know than what you know unfortunately.

solveit 7y ago

It helps that socialism is a much dirtier word in Korea, courtesy of history with a certain northern neighbour.

rchaud 7y ago
Is it? "Socialism" and "Communism" are used interchangeably in American politcal discourse as a blunt way to distinguish between democracy and capitalism versus dictatorship and collectivism. South Korea itself was a dictatorship until the late 1980s and received preferential treatment in trade talks in the cold war era with Western economies due to their unique role as a buffer against Communist expansion. This level of privileged access would not be available to less strategically important countries in a 'free market'. Plus SK already provides a level of socialist services that a failed state like North Korea can only dream of.

barry-cotter 7y ago

Always and everywhere the people at the bottom of the class hierarchy have enough problems that complaining about inequality or engaging in politics is not a priority. Social unrest is always about conflict within the elite or wannabe elite. The American Revolution was led by the richest of Americans. The French Revolution was led by the highly educated as was the Russian one. We have one historical example of a successful slave rebellion, in Haiti, and it was led by the most educated, cultured section of the free black population. For less violent examples look at the Labour Party in the UK, whose policy stance has almost always been that of the Fabian Society with some lag. A working class mass movement millions strong and what amounts to a debating/social club with well under a 1,000 truly active and engaged members had at least as big an impact on policy as the entire trade union movement.

watwut 7y ago
I think that you are simplifying those events quite a lot. The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. That is involvement and engagement in politics. The actual bottom is despised by everyone and comes with host of social problems. One of massive sparks for these political groups is fear that I will become part of the bottom. Both French Revolution and Russian one involved quite a lot of sides that fought among themselves and quite a lot of uneducated mobs attacking this or that place - these lost quickly. And yes, they are led by people in position to be leaders with education that gives them advantage. That does not mean the bottom is passive. Also, counting only successful attempts is probably not good enough. The slaves were running away and were resentful of inequality. What they did not had was the remote option to engage in politics - but they did engaged in it a lot when the opportunity arose. The subsequent suppression of black voting and politics did not happened because they were engaged or passive - it was because they were active.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > The willingness of "bottom of the class hierarchy" to join counts for quite a lot. If this were true neither the Russian nor the French Revolution would have been a “success”. Both were won by committed minorities in the capital city and they were even less popular outside it. A small organized minority of people willing to use violence to achieve their goals who are good at it can overcome weak opposition from a much larger number. The Bolsheviks killed the Mensheviks in Russia and all non-Socialist opposition thereafter. They would never, ever have won an election. Outside Paris the Revolution was not popular, thus the need to conquer the Vendée. The bottom is not passive. It just doesn’t matter because it doesn’t have any power. If it did it wouldn’t be bottom.
  - watwut 7y ago
    You basically count the one victorious group and ignore all the others. Russian civil war involved 5 armies. It involved mobs attacking local leaders who fled - they were not necessary related to eventual winners. French revolution was massively complex event too. Probably even more complex then Russian one. And in each of these events there were more then one side commuting violence - and there were many people having or voicing opinions about what should happen. That they lost does not mean they don't exist.

dba7dba 7y ago

In my opinion, S. Korea has less visible rage against inequality because of the Japanese colonialism, Korean War and the fast development of the economy since 1970s. For 500+ years before Japan occupied Korean peninsula in 1910, Korea had a strict social class system. Class inequality was very firmly in place. But most accepted it as a natural order, as any society with kings in ruling. All those social classes were broken down with the Japanese colonialism and the Korean War. Especially the Korean War. The Korean war basically wiped out overnight a large chunk of the landed rich. The society was turned upside down. It was a true leveling of the playing field. I'd say from end of the Korean War (or maybe even starting in 1910), those who rose above others in wealth largely did so on their own. The old money/wealth lost wealth and had none for the children to inherit. Obviously some cheated (or hacked their way in techie term) to get above. Others worked honestly and did well on test and in job to get above. So there's less decades/centuries old wealthy class passing down their wealth to their kids.

fiblye 7y ago

That dream get crushed when universities start increasingly accepting students through connections and children of graduates. Getting major urban schools is much harder as a rural kid with a 4.0 GPA than a kid from nearby with the same GPA and parents who attended and donated to the school a few times. I think Americans are more pissed off because there's been more to make people aware of the long term and growing unfairness.

robotnikman 7y ago
People do seem to forget how much a privileged upbringing can be a factor in terms of what university someone goes to and their job prospects once they have graduated. I've met software engineers who graduated from prestigious universities who were no more smarter than someone who learned programming and graduated from their local community college. Its more of who you know than what you know unfortunately.