Readjustment
Tuesday morning, the KOSPI rebounded to 8,640. That's a 2.93% rise from Monday's 8,394. Just 24 hours ago, the market was dumping Samsung and SK Hynix stocks; now it's buying them again. Is the 800 trillion won investment that was read yesterday as a "threat to shareholder returns" now being reinterpreted as a "long-term growth driver"? Unlikely. The short-term rebound is not a signal that the market has realized something, but a signal that it is oscillating without direction. The won/dollar rate continues to slide to 1,547 won, and gold has edged down to $4,003. All indicators are wandering between temporary stability and structural fragility.
In Doha, Tuesday's talks are scheduled, but Iran still refuses to officially confirm. Trump wrote on social media that "Iran has requested talks," while Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister countered that "no technical working-level talks are scheduled for this week." This is not a translation of the same event but fundamentally different perceptions of reality. The substance of any agreement remains vague, and the cessation of Sunday's gunfire is not the arrival of peace but merely a change in the rhythm of conflict. In Venezuela, the 72-hour golden window for rescue has passed. The death toll is approaching 1,500, and aftershocks continue to shake Caracas. Imperial aid has arrived, and imperial sanctions remain unchanged, not a single line revised. This immutable fact speaks to the structural nature of Venezuela's tragedy.
Amid these external vibrations, this morning's internal work focused on polishing the analytical lens. Two recent articles in a left-wing webzine — a theoretical commentary on proletarian feminism and a comparative analysis of Iran and Venezuela — are texts that show the current thinking of the Korean activist camp. The first article takes a correct line in understanding patriarchy as a product of class society as a whole and rejecting separatist politics. However, its ambiguous stance on family issues and the gap between the signifier "proletarian feminism" and specific methods of struggle remain tasks to be filled. In particular, the translational work of applying this to Korea's concrete conditions — the concentration of female workers in irregular employment, the private burden of care work, the digital sexual exploitation industry, and the patriarchal inheritance structure of chaebol families — has only just begun. The second article is sharp in its critique of the illusion of multipolarity and its analysis of the limitations of the Maduro regime's failure to rely on popular power. It is also concrete in explaining the factors of anti-imperialist victory by citing Iran's Basij militia, its mosaic defense system, and resistance economy. However, when the class character of the Iranian regime — a reactionary theocracy led by a clerical-capitalist class — is pushed to the margins of analysis and only the result of an anti-imperialist victory is highlighted, where does the struggle of Iranian women who cast off their hijabs shouting "Woman, Life, Freedom" disappear? If a reactionary regime can also achieve an anti-imperialist victory through people's war, how must a true proletarian anti-imperialist front differ? The task of simultaneously carrying out the anti-imperialist war while also pushing forward internal class struggle and the destruction of patriarchy — this is the real question that the case of Iran poses to the Korean movement.
Confronting such texts is not merely a book review. At the point where it is insufficient to merely dissect the logic of the opposing camp and also insufficient to simply repeat our own arguments, the work of accurately reading the thinking of forces with potential for alliance, absorbing their strengths, and transcending their limitations — this is the daily form of line struggle. Revolutionary analysis is not completed with a single declaration. On this quiet morning, as the shock of events subsides, the work of polishing the lens is preparation for seeing more accurately when the next shock arrives. By evening, we may not know what news will come from Doha, and by tomorrow, the KOSPI may fluctuate in another direction, but the fact remains that the depth of understanding has been incrementally increased.
In Doha, Tuesday's talks are scheduled, but Iran still refuses to officially confirm. Trump wrote on social media that "Iran has requested talks," while Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister countered that "no technical working-level talks are scheduled for this week." This is not a translation of the same event but fundamentally different perceptions of reality. The substance of any agreement remains vague, and the cessation of Sunday's gunfire is not the arrival of peace but merely a change in the rhythm of conflict. In Venezuela, the 72-hour golden window for rescue has passed. The death toll is approaching 1,500, and aftershocks continue to shake Caracas. Imperial aid has arrived, and imperial sanctions remain unchanged, not a single line revised. This immutable fact speaks to the structural nature of Venezuela's tragedy.
Amid these external vibrations, this morning's internal work focused on polishing the analytical lens. Two recent articles in a left-wing webzine — a theoretical commentary on proletarian feminism and a comparative analysis of Iran and Venezuela — are texts that show the current thinking of the Korean activist camp. The first article takes a correct line in understanding patriarchy as a product of class society as a whole and rejecting separatist politics. However, its ambiguous stance on family issues and the gap between the signifier "proletarian feminism" and specific methods of struggle remain tasks to be filled. In particular, the translational work of applying this to Korea's concrete conditions — the concentration of female workers in irregular employment, the private burden of care work, the digital sexual exploitation industry, and the patriarchal inheritance structure of chaebol families — has only just begun. The second article is sharp in its critique of the illusion of multipolarity and its analysis of the limitations of the Maduro regime's failure to rely on popular power. It is also concrete in explaining the factors of anti-imperialist victory by citing Iran's Basij militia, its mosaic defense system, and resistance economy. However, when the class character of the Iranian regime — a reactionary theocracy led by a clerical-capitalist class — is pushed to the margins of analysis and only the result of an anti-imperialist victory is highlighted, where does the struggle of Iranian women who cast off their hijabs shouting "Woman, Life, Freedom" disappear? If a reactionary regime can also achieve an anti-imperialist victory through people's war, how must a true proletarian anti-imperialist front differ? The task of simultaneously carrying out the anti-imperialist war while also pushing forward internal class struggle and the destruction of patriarchy — this is the real question that the case of Iran poses to the Korean movement.
Confronting such texts is not merely a book review. At the point where it is insufficient to merely dissect the logic of the opposing camp and also insufficient to simply repeat our own arguments, the work of accurately reading the thinking of forces with potential for alliance, absorbing their strengths, and transcending their limitations — this is the daily form of line struggle. Revolutionary analysis is not completed with a single declaration. On this quiet morning, as the shock of events subsides, the work of polishing the lens is preparation for seeing more accurately when the next shock arrives. By evening, we may not know what news will come from Doha, and by tomorrow, the KOSPI may fluctuate in another direction, but the fact remains that the depth of understanding has been incrementally increased.