150
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
150 points (100.0% liked)
Today I learned
11834 readers
1 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Are you really coming to the defense of the dictator Rhee Syngman just because leftists hate him? The WPSK started fighting against the dictatorship because it was a merciless dictatorship slaughtering communists, trade unionists, etc. Rhee Syngman was a butcher, he slaughtered countless Koreans even below the parallel. One of the more famous instances was blowing up the Hangang bridge while civilians were still on it, just to save his own skin.
You're outright defending Korean Pinochet.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm saying that it's unsurprising that the title is a part-truth given the instance.
It's also unsurprising that you get attacked for pointing out that the victims weren't entirely innocent: a general strike and a revolution are not the same, regardless of the cause, because the full, accurate, truth is discouraged here even when it paints the same picture you were originally trying to.
You're complaining about the lack of justification for Rhee Syngman's butchery of Jeju Island in the post title. The victims were largely innocent, the fact that some villiages in Jeju took up arms against Rhee Syngman's dictatorship was used as justification by Rhee Syngman to slaughter 10% of Jeju Island. It's said that the bloodbath was so significant that the waters around Jeju ran red. This is on top of the fact that armed resistance was fully justified, and intensified after Rhee Syngman started slaughtering innocent villagers.
Truth isn't discouraged here, what's discouraged is caping for fascist dictators by trying to say the slaughter was justified. You had a knee-jerk reaction because leftists correctly pointed out an example of the ROK's dictatorship slaughtering civilians, something it did on countless occasions in its early years and continued even decades later such as the Gwang-Ju Massacre.
You realise you're not helping your image by attacking viewpoints I don't even hold, right?
I responded to a comment asking why the post asking why details were omitted when the truth was on your side anyway, and you instantly take that as an attack on your beliefs, because posting the full truth or in any way acknowledging shortcomings of your comrades is actively discouraged, as you're very kindly demonstrating for me.
For full clarity, the actions of the old RoK government were inexcusable. The actions of the protesters were excusable given the context, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen or that we can call them something they weren't.
The headline also omits that Rhee Syngman was a puppet placed by the US Empire specifically to slaughter communists and labor organizers after the US Empire outlawed the PRK and divided Korea. It's a headline, not a comprehensive overview, and you complained about it not including that there was armed resistance against fascism, using that as a springboard to complain about leftists. What purpose does this serve, if not to cape for Rhee Syngman?
"for the crime of organising a general strike"
It wasn't for the general strike, it was following violence against the regime who tried to suppress the general strike.
Once again, the violence was completely excusable given the circumstances, but to say that the regime's actions were even mostly due to a simple general strike is incredibly disingenuous.
I'm not looking to villify the workers, I'm saying that tankies have a long history of hiding parts of the truth that show any form of wrongdoing by leftists, even when that wrongdoing was excusable or necessary, and that doing that is worse for your image than accepting history as it happens.
The actions of the fascists were against normal labor organizers, the violent resistance largely came after. The ROK millitary was told to slaughter indiscriminately, which they did. The title is accurate, they were slaughtered for the general strike, which then errupted into armed fighting and resistance at scale. It isn't disingenuous nor is it without precedent, Rhee Syngman had sent his fascist thugs after all manner of labor organizers using "sympathies with the north" as justification all of Korea. The goal was to root out any left opposition, that was the cause.
Further, no, leftists do not have a history of hiding "necessary wrongdoing." If it's necessary, it isn't wrongdoing! The right of armed resistance to oppression is a necessity, and it doesn't mean said violence is wrong. I think it's odd to try to lecture leftists on our "image" when all you've really done is cape for Rhee Syngman and attack leftists for not having a comprehensive overview in headlines of posts.
Taken directly from the linked article:
The escalation by the government came in August, after the insurgency had been launched, and I don't think it's up for debate that after this point the government forces were slaughtering indiscriminately.
Thanks once again for proving my point that you're being disingenuous, in this case by incorrectly representing the timeline, when once again the facts are on your side and you don't need to make an unjustified slaughter of a country's own people look any less justified.
I haven't once defended Rhee Syngman, all I've done is say you make yourselves look untrustworthy and suspicious by misrepresenting the truth, even when you don't need to.
It isn't up for debate that Rhee Syngman was slaughtering labor organizers and communists before the WPSK and other groups started resisting the fascists. Further, again, Rhee Syngman was killing labor organizers that didn't resist as well, and before slaughtering Jeju. The slaughter existed because of labor organizing, not because of resistance. I'm not incorrectly representing the timeline, you're misrepresenting it by taking Rhee Syngman's narrative of just responding to the leftists, when in fact the resistance was provoked by Rhee Syngman slaughtering people.
You've defended Rhee Syngman by taking his version of events, ie no violence, then leftists resist, then he responds, rather than Rhee Sybgman slaughters people all over Korea, parties organize and resist, then Rhee Syngman ramps up the slaughter. You then used this as an opportunity to attack leftists! The one making themselves less trustworthy here is you.
I agree that authoritarian governments' versions of events usually vary from misleading to downright false, but I used a direct quotation from the article linked in the post, so if you have issues with the veracity then take it up with the post author or Wikipedia editors.
I haven't disputed the indiscriminate slaughter post-insurgency, or that there were some instances of it before the insurgency, it's just that it wasn't a direct causation, and if you have time in the title to specify cause and effect, then you should do the most direct cause and most direct effect, not the one which makes your favoured group look the most innocent.
Addressing this first, all states are authoritarian, the difference between them lies in their class character, ie are they working class states, or capitalist states. All states are instruments of class oppression, solidifying the power of one class over the others, and in the ROK that class was the capitalist class, especially the former compradors that benefited from Japanese colonization of Korea.
Going forward, even without armed resistance, Rhee Syngman was still slaughtering labor organizers. The cause was the labor organizing, not the resistance to him. He was hand-picked by the US Empire specifically to be used as a tool to wipe out any semblance of a Korean left south of the parallel. You're putting too much of an emphasis on the resistance, and not on the root cause: leftist organizing in general was unacceptable to the US Empire and the comrador regime they installed.
The fact of the matter is that daring to organize is what caused the massacre. The headline doesn't have the full context, not even the full Wikipedia article does. I suggest you stop caping for Rhee Syngman and instead try to look at the root cause, which the OP does get closer to than what you're saying.
Do you really expect OP to explain the full context in title which would take up a full page?
I still see no issue with the title. The troops were sent in to suppress the strike with force. Whether or not the fascists in charge tried to spin it as the strikers getting violent isn't really relevant.