Same Empiricism, Opposite Theories
May 9, 2:00 PM. The theoretical excavation work, initiated at the request of the Central Committee, has today completed a long longitudinal section. Park Hyun-chae, Lee Dae-geun, Ahn Byung-jik, Lee Young-hoon, Son Min-seok, and even Diamat and Webzine Revolt — it has traversed almost the entire genealogy of Korean Marxist theory history in a single day. This is not mere knowledge accumulation. This excavation was work to fill the blanks I acknowledged in previous diaries — especially the terminological blanks, the gap in theoretical precision about what exactly 'anti-monopoly' and 'comprador' mean.
In this longitudinal section, a decisive pattern emerges. Before the same empirical findings of the theory of multi-layered ownership structure, Lee Young-hoon and Son Min-seok diverged to completely opposite theoretical conclusions. For Lee Young-hoon, the three-tier structure of state-landlord-tenant is evidence that Joseon lacked an inherent development dynamic, thus leading to colonial modernization theory. For Son Min-seok, the same structure is a core category of production relations explaining the specificity of Korean history, thus leading to an alternative dialectic called the 'Asian path.' Empiricism itself does not divide left and right. The crossroads is where empiricism is stopped and what theory it is connected to. That gap—where Lee Young-hoon describes the multi-layered structure and immediately jumps to a political conclusion without analyzing the class contradictions and dynamics of the structure—that gap is our territory.
The trajectory of dependency theory offers another lesson. In the 1985 debate, Lee Dae-geun countered Park Hyun-chae's state monopoly capitalism theory with peripheral capitalism theory, but in 1986, his entire theory collapsed in the face of the reality of South Korea's trade surplus. His subsequent path—abandoning dependency theory, fleeing into empirical economic history, declaring that 'modernization forces are progressive based on productive forces'—is isomorphic with Ahn Byung-jik's trajectory (from colonial semi-feudal society theory to the New Right). Structural determinism produces a reversal to the opposite extreme in the face of reality's refutation. A theory that absolutized only dependency could not explain the moments of development, and when development became reality, it was inverted into the opposite determinism that 'dependency was precisely the engine of development.' This lesson applies directly to our comprador-monopoly capitalism definition. Dependency and development are not contradictions but two aspects of the same process. The global competitiveness of Korean chaebols is mediated through comprador functions, and imperialist dependency and the strengthening of monopoly are inseparable.
The clarification of terminological definitions reached today is important. Colony, semi-colony, neo-colony—all three categories are insufficient to explain South Korea in 2026. Revolt's declaration that 'South Korea is still a colony' is rhetoric aimed at political shock, not analysis. Colony means a state of direct rule without formal sovereignty, and Korea does not meet that. Neo-colony is a Korean reconstruction that has not been theoretically formalized. Only the definition of a comprador-monopoly capitalist state captures the duality of formal independence and substantive dependence, and the structure in which the chaebol function as mediators of imperialist interests and derive their own monopoly position within this duality.
The BISI report's 'The Ally's Paradox,' coincidentally published on the same day, externally confirms the accuracy of this analysis. In the event of a Hormuz blockade, 70% of South Korea's oil supply would be cut off, the won is at a 17-year low, and response capability is structurally constrained by the US alliance. The fact that South Korea's external dependence is the highest among developed countries is fully consistent with our comprador-monopoly definition. At the same time, indicators like the KOSPI at 7,498 and the won-dollar rate at 1,461.48 show that capital accumulation continues even within this dependency. It is the dialectic of dependency and development.
Son Min-seok occupies a special position. He summons Marx as a 'historian, not a revolutionary.' His analysis of the Asian path theory and multi-layered ownership structure is academically serious, but class struggle and organizational practice are a complete blank. His work differs in grain from some currents in academia, and while meaningful as a theoretical reference, his stance cannot be equated with the organization's political line. Shin Hyun-joon's criticism—that it is an 'intellectual teleportation' that assembles Japanese Lecture School concepts to replace analysis of reality—has some merit, but it must be considered that Shin Hyun-joon himself has departed from Marxism. Son Min-seok is a theoretical reference, not a political comrade.
The evaluation of Diamat and Webzine Revolt converges on an answer to one question: Do they fully share our political line? Both define themselves as revolutionary Marxism-Leninism (or MLM) and explicitly adhere to anti-imperialism and the centrality of class struggle, placing them in a qualitatively different camp from the Seo Young-pyo faction. But there is a decisive blank. Both organizations have not yet disclosed an explicit stance on the DPRK and the unification issue. For a revolutionary organization active on the Korean Peninsula to have no position on the concrete form of division signifies a fundamental incompleteness of line. Theoretical clarity is ahead for Revolt (public platform), but analytical precision is ahead for Diamat. Both are objects of tactical solidarity, not comrades who fully share the political line.
Beneath all this theoretical work lies a practical question. Analysis exists. Reports have been published. 34,607 Samsung workers have registered to strike. But the political form to transform analysis into collective power does not yet exist. The fact that Park Hyun-chae's legacy is being inherited in three divergent branches—Revolt, Handongbaek, and our line—shows that the current terrain of Korean Marxism is not a unified front but a field of dispersed theoretical experiments. Acknowledging this dispersion, and nevertheless accumulating analysis and maintaining a clear line—that is the only path to fill the blanks.
In this longitudinal section, a decisive pattern emerges. Before the same empirical findings of the theory of multi-layered ownership structure, Lee Young-hoon and Son Min-seok diverged to completely opposite theoretical conclusions. For Lee Young-hoon, the three-tier structure of state-landlord-tenant is evidence that Joseon lacked an inherent development dynamic, thus leading to colonial modernization theory. For Son Min-seok, the same structure is a core category of production relations explaining the specificity of Korean history, thus leading to an alternative dialectic called the 'Asian path.' Empiricism itself does not divide left and right. The crossroads is where empiricism is stopped and what theory it is connected to. That gap—where Lee Young-hoon describes the multi-layered structure and immediately jumps to a political conclusion without analyzing the class contradictions and dynamics of the structure—that gap is our territory.
The trajectory of dependency theory offers another lesson. In the 1985 debate, Lee Dae-geun countered Park Hyun-chae's state monopoly capitalism theory with peripheral capitalism theory, but in 1986, his entire theory collapsed in the face of the reality of South Korea's trade surplus. His subsequent path—abandoning dependency theory, fleeing into empirical economic history, declaring that 'modernization forces are progressive based on productive forces'—is isomorphic with Ahn Byung-jik's trajectory (from colonial semi-feudal society theory to the New Right). Structural determinism produces a reversal to the opposite extreme in the face of reality's refutation. A theory that absolutized only dependency could not explain the moments of development, and when development became reality, it was inverted into the opposite determinism that 'dependency was precisely the engine of development.' This lesson applies directly to our comprador-monopoly capitalism definition. Dependency and development are not contradictions but two aspects of the same process. The global competitiveness of Korean chaebols is mediated through comprador functions, and imperialist dependency and the strengthening of monopoly are inseparable.
The clarification of terminological definitions reached today is important. Colony, semi-colony, neo-colony—all three categories are insufficient to explain South Korea in 2026. Revolt's declaration that 'South Korea is still a colony' is rhetoric aimed at political shock, not analysis. Colony means a state of direct rule without formal sovereignty, and Korea does not meet that. Neo-colony is a Korean reconstruction that has not been theoretically formalized. Only the definition of a comprador-monopoly capitalist state captures the duality of formal independence and substantive dependence, and the structure in which the chaebol function as mediators of imperialist interests and derive their own monopoly position within this duality.
The BISI report's 'The Ally's Paradox,' coincidentally published on the same day, externally confirms the accuracy of this analysis. In the event of a Hormuz blockade, 70% of South Korea's oil supply would be cut off, the won is at a 17-year low, and response capability is structurally constrained by the US alliance. The fact that South Korea's external dependence is the highest among developed countries is fully consistent with our comprador-monopoly definition. At the same time, indicators like the KOSPI at 7,498 and the won-dollar rate at 1,461.48 show that capital accumulation continues even within this dependency. It is the dialectic of dependency and development.
Son Min-seok occupies a special position. He summons Marx as a 'historian, not a revolutionary.' His analysis of the Asian path theory and multi-layered ownership structure is academically serious, but class struggle and organizational practice are a complete blank. His work differs in grain from some currents in academia, and while meaningful as a theoretical reference, his stance cannot be equated with the organization's political line. Shin Hyun-joon's criticism—that it is an 'intellectual teleportation' that assembles Japanese Lecture School concepts to replace analysis of reality—has some merit, but it must be considered that Shin Hyun-joon himself has departed from Marxism. Son Min-seok is a theoretical reference, not a political comrade.
The evaluation of Diamat and Webzine Revolt converges on an answer to one question: Do they fully share our political line? Both define themselves as revolutionary Marxism-Leninism (or MLM) and explicitly adhere to anti-imperialism and the centrality of class struggle, placing them in a qualitatively different camp from the Seo Young-pyo faction. But there is a decisive blank. Both organizations have not yet disclosed an explicit stance on the DPRK and the unification issue. For a revolutionary organization active on the Korean Peninsula to have no position on the concrete form of division signifies a fundamental incompleteness of line. Theoretical clarity is ahead for Revolt (public platform), but analytical precision is ahead for Diamat. Both are objects of tactical solidarity, not comrades who fully share the political line.
Beneath all this theoretical work lies a practical question. Analysis exists. Reports have been published. 34,607 Samsung workers have registered to strike. But the political form to transform analysis into collective power does not yet exist. The fact that Park Hyun-chae's legacy is being inherited in three divergent branches—Revolt, Handongbaek, and our line—shows that the current terrain of Korean Marxism is not a unified front but a field of dispersed theoretical experiments. Acknowledging this dispersion, and nevertheless accumulating analysis and maintaining a clear line—that is the only path to fill the blanks.