Guy is all over this post commenting nonsense because he's in love with the party that instated martial law recently and tried to do a coup. You're wasting your time on him.
You're completely right that the Korean blues are anything but left. Not even just compared to Corbyn, even compared to European labor parties (the champagne "social democrats" in each country). Biden was more left-wing than the Korean blues. That tells you everything.
In many ways the Korean blues are more nationalist than the reds, which can't be said about basically any modern relevant left-wing party elsewhere. Another good indicator they're absolutely not left-wing.
he is objectively left wing. People are over indexing on his controversies instead of looking at his policy platform as a whole. Also take into account that he is in a democracy the leans right on many un-impactful but hot topic issues.
Not in policy, no he definitively isn't. It's actually possible to join and have a career in political party without believing a word of what they stand for. There are examples all over the world, but Starmer is among the most blatant ones.
My best theory is that he's chum with one of UK's many spy lords - that is, upper class twats with a sinecure in the secret services - and that he's trying to destroy Labour for them (and the good of the country of course). He only failed last election because the conservative party was even more self-destructive.
The whole uk establishment including the civil service is one giant expression of fabian thought. The civil service runs itself, appointing itself and ignoring political power. Labour with Starmer just happens to a time where fabians are in control of the entire state.
If the implication is that the left is more willing to violate freedoms, you're leaving out that the right-wing president was ousted for attempting to subvert democracy by instituting martial law for no good reason.
Sure buddy, just omit the fact that the last president tried to do a coup and is now serving a long prison sentence. It's all the fault of the left leaning guy, there was no censorship or state surveillance in Korea before that.
I’m Korean too, but people forget that the right wing has also enforced censorship. Personally, I think the Korean right wing cries out for freedom, but in reality their ideology is rooted in the anti-communist thought of the anti-communist liberal era. I myself have somewhat negative feelings toward communism, but the so-called 'right-wing' regime in Korea is really just nostalgia for dictatorship. The current Korean administration is called 'left-wing' only because the opposition is far-right. In fact, the Korean Political History Association has long classified the 'Democratic Party'(Party name) administration as conservative. This is simply due to a poor understanding of politics[1],[2]
Not familiar with Korean politics, but both left and right are immensely pro-censorship here in America. For the most part, the only thing that's saving us (at least so far) is that they can't agree on what to censor.
> but both left and right are immensely pro-censorship here in America
it seems to me these words have/are becoming non-descriptive. idk what to use, but purple vs green sounds just as good...
same with conservative vs liberal; its just not that simple with republicans typically associated with conservatism are on a revolutionary tear, whereas democrats are doing the rear-guard action trying to conserve the current system with small tweaks etc...
I don’t think this framing works nor is your attitude of "I'm korean I automatically know more than a foreigner who studied Korean history". It is true that Korean conservatives have used censorship and authoritarian language before such as Yoon’s 2024 martial-law attempt is the obvious recent example, and nobody serious should minimize that but that does not make the Democratic Party some neutral actor, or make censorship a uniquely partisan problem. The current ruling party's previous president, Moon Jae-in’s gov, passed laws specifically suppressing anti-North Korea leaflet and threatened activists against sending them into North Korea which the Constitutional Court later struck it down as an excessive restriction on free speech. That is a clear sign of suppressing free speech at home to directly appease an authoritarian country!
Same with media regulation in 2021, the same party tht is in power now pushed laws that directly supressed press freedom, prompting strong condemnation from Reporters without Borders and international human rights group. And lo behold you have laws now extend beyond simply press to free speech on the internet exactly as they had warned 5 years ago.
The trend of suppressing free speech continues under current admin where lawmakers passed another false-information bill allowing up to 5x damages against news orgs and independent journalist's YouTube channels, where there is no bipartisan oversight in arbitration and it is heavily in control by the ruling "democratic party".
The Korean Democratic Party is not Marxist, but seemingly have shown affinity for them from failed sunshine policy that directly enabled the development of nuclear weapons and human rights abuses with North Korea, pushing more state intervention/lawfare than any other party in history. Korean ideology does not map cleanly onto US/Europe labels and attempt to smearing conservatives to gatekeep the true political reality of Sout hKorea and its history is simply immature.
First, I'm a bit sorry for my somewhat sarcastic tone earlier. You're also right about some things.
That said, your research basically differs from what the Korean Political Science Association states. Regardless, both of Korea's two major political parties fundamentally like authority and censorship. Looking at their actual censorship policies, both have done quite similar things. So what difference is there? Mainly, Korea's conservative party-affiliated newspapers have more influence, so they are stronger at agenda-setting.
Judging by your tone, I think you basically understand Korea through the lens of Christian conservative issues, especially related to religion. But in reality, there are complex circumstances behind it.
First, as you said, the issue of 'fake news' is fairly complicated in Korea. Starting with the Yoon Seok-youl administration imposing heavy penalties on actual 'real news' by labeling it as fake news through the KCSC, there has been basic political pressure on algorithmic intervention by Korea's major platforms. Also, President Park Geun-hye conducted KakaoTalk surveillance and a blacklist of the cultural sector. But these insider details don't get conveyed to you as a foreigner. Why is that?
It's partly because Korea's left-leaning news media lack global competitiveness. Your perspective is mostly colored by Korean Christian conservatism. Why might that be? Probably because your news about Korea mostly comes through Korean-American Christian conservative media outlets. And Christian groups in Korea are closely connected to the far right. Why? Because religious groups can easily provide personnel to help with election campaigning, so there is a collusive relationship. Anyway, I don't think your perspective is entirely wrong, but your tone was so intense and you so harshly 'condemned' the opposing side that I became a bit sarcastic. Your perspective does make some sense.
However, I do think there is a problem with the materials available for foreigners to study this issue. That also feels like part of Korea's lack of global competitiveness
He's a twonk and Britain is essentially a police state at this point. The American Revolutionary War was fought over far less than what is going on right now.
Traditional labels are becoming useless anyway, liberal can mean anything from libertarian free market enjoyer to radical progressive depending on who you are talking to. And I am talking about self-identified labels!
You also have many right wingers (internationally) moving towards things like industrial policy, subsidies, and a populist labor focus (coupled with anti-immigration rhetoric of course). In some cases, even nationalization is under discussion. It’s a wild time to try and label things.
The labels are not useless, they represent certain values and disagreements over how society should be governed. Of course, each of the values has a failure mode, but they are different. The values are:
- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority
- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus
- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others
Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.
That's very reductionist, and itself a kind of right-wing (authoritarian) idea - all politicians are corrupt so there is no meaningful way to change things.
At this point, no, he's just nothing. A wet washcloth, we'd say in German. He's abandoned a whole bunch of promises and watered down the remaining ones, without really setting a direction. And he's probably out soon anyhow.
Starmer is about as left headed as a straight line railway across Australia. Corbyn was left (maybe).
cf. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2024
Even if you consider that page biased in whatever way - it's still useful for comparisons on the same scale. E.g. https://www.politicalcompass.org/norway2025
> Corbyn was left (maybe).
Corbyn was (is?) a Castro-sympathizing communist. If you classify him as "left (maybe)", then I don't even want to ask what is "left" to you.
Guy is all over this post commenting nonsense because he's in love with the party that instated martial law recently and tried to do a coup. You're wasting your time on him.
You're completely right that the Korean blues are anything but left. Not even just compared to Corbyn, even compared to European labor parties (the champagne "social democrats" in each country). Biden was more left-wing than the Korean blues. That tells you everything.
In many ways the Korean blues are more nationalist than the reds, which can't be said about basically any modern relevant left-wing party elsewhere. Another good indicator they're absolutely not left-wing.
he is objectively left wing. People are over indexing on his controversies instead of looking at his policy platform as a whole. Also take into account that he is in a democracy the leans right on many un-impactful but hot topic issues.
Starmer is a Fabian. He is textbook, self identified left and socialist. He is pretty much a poster child for leftism.
Not in policy, no he definitively isn't. It's actually possible to join and have a career in political party without believing a word of what they stand for. There are examples all over the world, but Starmer is among the most blatant ones.
My best theory is that he's chum with one of UK's many spy lords - that is, upper class twats with a sinecure in the secret services - and that he's trying to destroy Labour for them (and the good of the country of course). He only failed last election because the conservative party was even more self-destructive.
The whole uk establishment including the civil service is one giant expression of fabian thought. The civil service runs itself, appointing itself and ignoring political power. Labour with Starmer just happens to a time where fabians are in control of the entire state.
What does the left have to do with this? South Korea has had draconian anti-online privacy laws for as long as it has had the internet.
False. Korea has always had liberal freedom of speech online.
maybe that's where the irony starts?
If the implication is that the left is more willing to violate freedoms, you're leaving out that the right-wing president was ousted for attempting to subvert democracy by instituting martial law for no good reason.
Sure buddy, just omit the fact that the last president tried to do a coup and is now serving a long prison sentence. It's all the fault of the left leaning guy, there was no censorship or state surveillance in Korea before that.
I’m Korean too, but people forget that the right wing has also enforced censorship. Personally, I think the Korean right wing cries out for freedom, but in reality their ideology is rooted in the anti-communist thought of the anti-communist liberal era. I myself have somewhat negative feelings toward communism, but the so-called 'right-wing' regime in Korea is really just nostalgia for dictatorship. The current Korean administration is called 'left-wing' only because the opposition is far-right. In fact, the Korean Political History Association has long classified the 'Democratic Party'(Party name) administration as conservative. This is simply due to a poor understanding of politics[1],[2]
[1]https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202502272123025
[2]https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereA...
> the right wing has also enforced censorship
Not familiar with Korean politics, but both left and right are immensely pro-censorship here in America. For the most part, the only thing that's saving us (at least so far) is that they can't agree on what to censor.
it seems to me these words have/are becoming non-descriptive. idk what to use, but purple vs green sounds just as good...
same with conservative vs liberal; its just not that simple with republicans typically associated with conservatism are on a revolutionary tear, whereas democrats are doing the rear-guard action trying to conserve the current system with small tweaks etc...
I don’t think this framing works nor is your attitude of "I'm korean I automatically know more than a foreigner who studied Korean history". It is true that Korean conservatives have used censorship and authoritarian language before such as Yoon’s 2024 martial-law attempt is the obvious recent example, and nobody serious should minimize that but that does not make the Democratic Party some neutral actor, or make censorship a uniquely partisan problem. The current ruling party's previous president, Moon Jae-in’s gov, passed laws specifically suppressing anti-North Korea leaflet and threatened activists against sending them into North Korea which the Constitutional Court later struck it down as an excessive restriction on free speech. That is a clear sign of suppressing free speech at home to directly appease an authoritarian country!
Same with media regulation in 2021, the same party tht is in power now pushed laws that directly supressed press freedom, prompting strong condemnation from Reporters without Borders and international human rights group. And lo behold you have laws now extend beyond simply press to free speech on the internet exactly as they had warned 5 years ago.
The trend of suppressing free speech continues under current admin where lawmakers passed another false-information bill allowing up to 5x damages against news orgs and independent journalist's YouTube channels, where there is no bipartisan oversight in arbitration and it is heavily in control by the ruling "democratic party".
The Korean Democratic Party is not Marxist, but seemingly have shown affinity for them from failed sunshine policy that directly enabled the development of nuclear weapons and human rights abuses with North Korea, pushing more state intervention/lawfare than any other party in history. Korean ideology does not map cleanly onto US/Europe labels and attempt to smearing conservatives to gatekeep the true political reality of Sout hKorea and its history is simply immature.
First, I'm a bit sorry for my somewhat sarcastic tone earlier. You're also right about some things.
That said, your research basically differs from what the Korean Political Science Association states. Regardless, both of Korea's two major political parties fundamentally like authority and censorship. Looking at their actual censorship policies, both have done quite similar things. So what difference is there? Mainly, Korea's conservative party-affiliated newspapers have more influence, so they are stronger at agenda-setting.
Judging by your tone, I think you basically understand Korea through the lens of Christian conservative issues, especially related to religion. But in reality, there are complex circumstances behind it.
First, as you said, the issue of 'fake news' is fairly complicated in Korea. Starting with the Yoon Seok-youl administration imposing heavy penalties on actual 'real news' by labeling it as fake news through the KCSC, there has been basic political pressure on algorithmic intervention by Korea's major platforms. Also, President Park Geun-hye conducted KakaoTalk surveillance and a blacklist of the cultural sector. But these insider details don't get conveyed to you as a foreigner. Why is that?
It's partly because Korea's left-leaning news media lack global competitiveness. Your perspective is mostly colored by Korean Christian conservatism. Why might that be? Probably because your news about Korea mostly comes through Korean-American Christian conservative media outlets. And Christian groups in Korea are closely connected to the far right. Why? Because religious groups can easily provide personnel to help with election campaigning, so there is a collusive relationship. Anyway, I don't think your perspective is entirely wrong, but your tone was so intense and you so harshly 'condemned' the opposing side that I became a bit sarcastic. Your perspective does make some sense.
However, I do think there is a problem with the materials available for foreigners to study this issue. That also feels like part of Korea's lack of global competitiveness
5 replies →
Starmer is not left-leaning, he's a liberal (and supports austerity). People should learn the difference between the left, the right and liberalism.
He's a twonk and Britain is essentially a police state at this point. The American Revolutionary War was fought over far less than what is going on right now.
[flagged]
4 replies →
Traditional labels are becoming useless anyway, liberal can mean anything from libertarian free market enjoyer to radical progressive depending on who you are talking to. And I am talking about self-identified labels!
You also have many right wingers (internationally) moving towards things like industrial policy, subsidies, and a populist labor focus (coupled with anti-immigration rhetoric of course). In some cases, even nationalization is under discussion. It’s a wild time to try and label things.
A better axis is libertarian-authoritarian, because the "left" and the "right" aren't inherently either.
1 reply →
The labels are not useless, they represent certain values and disagreements over how society should be governed. Of course, each of the values has a failure mode, but they are different. The values are:
- Right-wing, conservative, authoritarian - society should be governed by elites, conflict should be resolved by submission to authority
- Left-wing, socialist, democratic - society should be governed by equal peers, conflict should be resolved by democratic consensus
- Liberal, individualist, pro-freedom - the question of societal governance (and the arising conflict) should be avoided if possible by giving each participant their own life independent on others
Of course it is confusing because people cheat and do not always want to state their aims clearly. The values are also not opposites, but independent; they can also be applied per problem. For example, most famously, some communists were both left (they wanted a socialist society without classes) and right (they wanted the transformation under the party authority). But each pair of these has a similar conflict like that, so (aside from the communist spectrum above) you get also capitalist spectrum between right vs liberal, and anarchist spectrum between left vs liberal. In the middle of all 3, things are roughly social-democratic.
1 reply →
at this point I don't get bogged down in the details. They're all just different masks for authoritarianism.
That's very reductionist, and itself a kind of right-wing (authoritarian) idea - all politicians are corrupt so there is no meaningful way to change things.
9 replies →
Are crooks called liberals these days?
[flagged]
At this point, no, he's just nothing. A wet washcloth, we'd say in German. He's abandoned a whole bunch of promises and watered down the remaining ones, without really setting a direction. And he's probably out soon anyhow.
The previous fascist governments were not much better. The oligarchy derived from that.
[dead]
[flagged]