What do you think?
Rate this book
Patriots, Traitors and Empires: The Story of Korea's Struggle for Freedom
Patriots, Traitors and Empires recounts modern Korean history from the point of view of those who fought to free Korea from the domination of foreign empires. First Japan, then the United States.
When Kim Il-sung, founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, along with other patriots, launched a guerrilla war against Japanese colonial domination in 1932, other Koreans joined the side of Japan's Empire. They became officers in the Japanese army or part of the hated colonial police force, thus traitors to the cause of Korean freedom.
After the US engineered partition of their country, Koreans fought a conventional war from 1950-1953. Three million Koreans gave their lives.
This insightful, informative and timely book answers the nagging questions and provides a much-needed antidote to the jingoist clamor spewing from most quarters whenever Korea is discussed.
When Kim Il-sung, founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, along with other patriots, launched a guerrilla war against Japanese colonial domination in 1932, other Koreans joined the side of Japan's Empire. They became officers in the Japanese army or part of the hated colonial police force, thus traitors to the cause of Korean freedom.
After the US engineered partition of their country, Koreans fought a conventional war from 1950-1953. Three million Koreans gave their lives.
This insightful, informative and timely book answers the nagging questions and provides a much-needed antidote to the jingoist clamor spewing from most quarters whenever Korea is discussed.
290 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2018
54 people are currently reading
2119 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Gowans
5 books32 followersStephen Gowans is an independent political analyst whose main interest is on who influences foreign policy in the United States. His book, Washington’s Long War on Syria (Baraka Books, 2017), was widely acclaimed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
April 25, 2021
What was left of a lifetime of anti-DPRK programming has been scrubbed clean. I was surprised that I had never heard or made the connection myself that nuclear weapons for the DPRK played a dual role of deterring agression rather than instigating it, while also allowing their military defense spending to be less of a burden on their economy.
July 10, 2018
Eye opening and poetic. Fascinating history for those who are already anti-imperialist and for those who are not this puts into plain perspective why the DPRK (among every other anti-imperialist nation on earth) deserves your support. Cannot recommend enough.
April 17, 2023
I COULD NOT PUT THIS BOOK DOWN!!! Would recommend to anyone interested in knowing about Korea's history especially North Korea.
June 12, 2018
An excellent book that exposes (and explodes) myths about North Korea and shows how South Korea is a puppet state of the US. Full review: http://bit.ly/koreanstruggle
July 9, 2025
very highly recommend to anyone interested in the Korean war and Korean politics (or should I say American?) , it gives a concise and well-researched overview into the transference of power over South Korea from Japan to America, as well as detailing America’s imperialist and colonial aims of expansion, overall very good read! I will be moving on to Cumings as I noticed that he was used a lot as a source . I always prefer primary to secondary sources (especially if used repeatedly) and that’s really my only issue with this book.
August 18, 2021
Gowans is great at amassing details that emphasize the premise of Patriots, Tratiors, and Empire: North Korea is an anti-imperialist state that seeks a united Korea free of foreign interference. Just trace the lineage of the various heads of state. The progenitor of the Kim family, Kim Il-Sung, was a much beloved anti-Japanese and anti-US, guerrilla fighter who several times since 1960 proposed a "Koryo Federation" between the north and south that accepted a dual system on the condition the US left. This was rejected by US and South Korean leaders - one of which was one of the US-installed dictators Park Chung-hee, who tried to hunt down Kim Il-Sung when Japan ruled Korea.
His daughter, the future disgraced president Park Gyeun-hee, lives up to the family name. Worth noting the "coincidence" of daughters of dictators running for president fully support by the political establishment because of the strength of the legacy of their dictator parents then turning out to be deeply corrupt. ENTER: Keiko Fujimori.
Anyway, it's these kinds of details, colored in with the US' legalistic hypocrisy about nuclear armaments and its regular genocidal threats to a country it butchered in the 50s, that repositions North Korea as a country trying to reunify the countries under a democracy free of US interests. Maybe the clearest example, as Gowans repeatedly emphasizes, is that the South Korean army is not run by South Korea. The US has operational command over it.
I have to take away a star for several reasons though:
1) Gowans can be a bit loose with anecdotes, such as the story of Syngman Rhee being rewarded a gold pocketwatch for his service to Emperor Hirohito. He cites Bruce Cumings, but the only reference to this story I can find from Cumings has it as being gifted by the Japanese-installed figurehead president of Manchuria Pu Yi. It doesn't take away from the broader point, but it's distracting.
2) Specifically around chapters 13 and 14, but generally over the course of the book, less and less is said despite the amount of words on the page. Historical context is restated, frameworks are resupplied, and at one point Gowans "reiterates" an earlier point by literally copy-pasting it. It feels like he wanted to say more but couldn't think of anything else to say.
3) Because of this perceived lack of a grander thesis, the book is deflated by the end. Yet this would have been easily resolved if he added extra emphasis to a semi-recurring idea that seems to be the fundamental point of writing the book in the first place: Charles Mills' idea of an epistemology of ignorance:
This is timely not just because Critical Race Theory is in the headlines these days (which Mills' own work The Racial Contract is part and parcel of), but also because it ties the cultishly anti-North Korean media culture in America to the white supremacy of American empire-building. Maybe this was too theoretical and Gowans wanted to keep to the journalistic angle? Not unreasonable. Either way, as is, Gowans' conclusion that anti-imperialist governments like North Korea are an extension of "the democratic revolution inaugurated in France in 1789" feels incomplete without it. It is an inarguably important book to read though.
His daughter, the future disgraced president Park Gyeun-hee, lives up to the family name. Worth noting the "coincidence" of daughters of dictators running for president fully support by the political establishment because of the strength of the legacy of their dictator parents then turning out to be deeply corrupt. ENTER: Keiko Fujimori.
Anyway, it's these kinds of details, colored in with the US' legalistic hypocrisy about nuclear armaments and its regular genocidal threats to a country it butchered in the 50s, that repositions North Korea as a country trying to reunify the countries under a democracy free of US interests. Maybe the clearest example, as Gowans repeatedly emphasizes, is that the South Korean army is not run by South Korea. The US has operational command over it.
I have to take away a star for several reasons though:
1) Gowans can be a bit loose with anecdotes, such as the story of Syngman Rhee being rewarded a gold pocketwatch for his service to Emperor Hirohito. He cites Bruce Cumings, but the only reference to this story I can find from Cumings has it as being gifted by the Japanese-installed figurehead president of Manchuria Pu Yi. It doesn't take away from the broader point, but it's distracting.
2) Specifically around chapters 13 and 14, but generally over the course of the book, less and less is said despite the amount of words on the page. Historical context is restated, frameworks are resupplied, and at one point Gowans "reiterates" an earlier point by literally copy-pasting it. It feels like he wanted to say more but couldn't think of anything else to say.
3) Because of this perceived lack of a grander thesis, the book is deflated by the end. Yet this would have been easily resolved if he added extra emphasis to a semi-recurring idea that seems to be the fundamental point of writing the book in the first place: Charles Mills' idea of an epistemology of ignorance:
One 'has to learn to see the world wrongly, but with the assurance that this set of mistaken perceptions will be validated by' the official 'epistemic authority'...the official ideology prescribes an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, which produces the ironic outcome that the denizens of imperialist countries will in general be unable to understand the world their countries have made."
This is timely not just because Critical Race Theory is in the headlines these days (which Mills' own work The Racial Contract is part and parcel of), but also because it ties the cultishly anti-North Korean media culture in America to the white supremacy of American empire-building. Maybe this was too theoretical and Gowans wanted to keep to the journalistic angle? Not unreasonable. Either way, as is, Gowans' conclusion that anti-imperialist governments like North Korea are an extension of "the democratic revolution inaugurated in France in 1789" feels incomplete without it. It is an inarguably important book to read though.
February 8, 2024
if you want more reasons to despise the USA this book is perfect
June 14, 2018
Very important book, one of a small handful that give a nuanced and interesting view of modern Korean history (others include Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History, North Korea: The Struggle Against American Power and Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement).
As you would expect with Stephen Gowans, the perspective is unapologetically anti-imperialist, but in a sea of essentially pro-imperialist writing on North Korea, this is no bad thing. Plus the book is well-sourced and credible.
As you would expect with Stephen Gowans, the perspective is unapologetically anti-imperialist, but in a sea of essentially pro-imperialist writing on North Korea, this is no bad thing. Plus the book is well-sourced and credible.
October 2, 2023
I honestly had to double check who the author was of this book, as this work hewed so close to the official pronouncements of the Korean Central News Agency (aka, the propaganda mouthpiece of the DPRK/North Korea). This work covers the struggles of the Korean peninsula from the start of the 20th century to the present. In particular, it focuses on what became South Korea and its struggles for independence and freedom while dealing with the Japanese and American occupations, as well as a series of autocratic/dictatorial governments before it evolved into the economic powerhouse it is today.
Gowans however, is working from the premise that what is South Korea is nothing more than an artificial construct that is forever under the influence of exterior forces, mainly Japan and now the US. South Korea was always more open to this and fell more willingly into an imperialistic/capitalistic subjugation. In comparison, North Korea actually engaged in a more “freer” society, under the leadership of Kim Il-Sung. South Korea, even as it has grown more powerful than North Korea militarily, is still seen as a puppet of the US in this telling, whereas North Korea is a militarized, backwards country only due to its trying to defend itself from the oppressive, capitalistic clutches of the US.
As I finished this work, it struck me that if reviled sports commentator Skip Bayless ever wanted to write a book about foreign policy, this would be his type of work. Gowans almost seeks to be contrarian, and troll any knowledgeable reader about the Korean Peninsula. His praise of the DPRK system of government would make you wonder if Pyongyang actually offered him some advanced money. He quotes extensively from North Korean political documents and offers exquisite praise of Kim Il-Sung. He conveniently dismisses any criticism of his narrative as propaganda of the West and other non-Korean entities.
The reality of North Korea is far, far from Gowans’ description. No mention is made of how it was truly North Korea that started the Korean War conflict, once Kim Il-Sung got the go-ahead from Stalin to do so. No mention of Kim’s ruthless destruction of his political rivals. Gowns conveniently skips over how North Korea turned into near perfect Orwellian state with internal survelliance and a system of gulag/concentration camps that would make Stalin proud. While North Korea did start out with an economic edge on South Korea, poor economic mismanagement and way too many ties to the USSR doomed the country by the 1980s. Of course, Gowans will not mention the various terrorist attacks and plots by North Korea to harm South Korea. Gowans almost seemed to be pulling for North Korea to have actually invaded and set up their own state in Korea. Maybe it would be an anti-imperialist/anti-American ideal, but given how North Korea ran its own borders, would Gowans say the same for a full North Korean Peninsula?
About the only reason that I could give this a weak 1-star is that in this pro-North Korean screed, there are a few slivers of truth. The US did basically sell Korea to Japan in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War, something that the Korean Peninsula hasn’t forgotten. The US did divide the Korean Peninsula with no real understanding or logic about Korea. South Korea was basically under a military-style dictatorship for the 1st 40 years or so of its existence and they were brutal to their enemies. Yes, North Korea is using its pursuit of nuclear weapons as a defensive measure. Of course, as flawed as South Korea is, North Korea is in a far, far worse situation. It is using nukes to defend itself, but think about what sort of regime it is defending. Is Gowans aware of how North Korea uses its limited economic resources? The sanctions hurt the country, but the money it can bring in goes not only to the military, but also to its elites for their excesses.
If you have to get this book, don’t pay any money for it. If someone gifts this to you, save it for kindling and/or when you need emergency toilet paper, and then question your standing with the person who would give it to you. For Gowans, if you are going to put yourself completely in the pocket of North Korea, at least use some of their descriptions. Spice up the writing by more generous references to “Yankee Bastards” and comparing South Korean leaders to “lap dogs”. The logic that because North Korea is anti-US, they must be better is almost as bad as the US figuring as long as a country was anti-commie, they must be ok…surely not the point Gowans wanted to make.
Gowans however, is working from the premise that what is South Korea is nothing more than an artificial construct that is forever under the influence of exterior forces, mainly Japan and now the US. South Korea was always more open to this and fell more willingly into an imperialistic/capitalistic subjugation. In comparison, North Korea actually engaged in a more “freer” society, under the leadership of Kim Il-Sung. South Korea, even as it has grown more powerful than North Korea militarily, is still seen as a puppet of the US in this telling, whereas North Korea is a militarized, backwards country only due to its trying to defend itself from the oppressive, capitalistic clutches of the US.
As I finished this work, it struck me that if reviled sports commentator Skip Bayless ever wanted to write a book about foreign policy, this would be his type of work. Gowans almost seeks to be contrarian, and troll any knowledgeable reader about the Korean Peninsula. His praise of the DPRK system of government would make you wonder if Pyongyang actually offered him some advanced money. He quotes extensively from North Korean political documents and offers exquisite praise of Kim Il-Sung. He conveniently dismisses any criticism of his narrative as propaganda of the West and other non-Korean entities.
The reality of North Korea is far, far from Gowans’ description. No mention is made of how it was truly North Korea that started the Korean War conflict, once Kim Il-Sung got the go-ahead from Stalin to do so. No mention of Kim’s ruthless destruction of his political rivals. Gowns conveniently skips over how North Korea turned into near perfect Orwellian state with internal survelliance and a system of gulag/concentration camps that would make Stalin proud. While North Korea did start out with an economic edge on South Korea, poor economic mismanagement and way too many ties to the USSR doomed the country by the 1980s. Of course, Gowans will not mention the various terrorist attacks and plots by North Korea to harm South Korea. Gowans almost seemed to be pulling for North Korea to have actually invaded and set up their own state in Korea. Maybe it would be an anti-imperialist/anti-American ideal, but given how North Korea ran its own borders, would Gowans say the same for a full North Korean Peninsula?
About the only reason that I could give this a weak 1-star is that in this pro-North Korean screed, there are a few slivers of truth. The US did basically sell Korea to Japan in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War, something that the Korean Peninsula hasn’t forgotten. The US did divide the Korean Peninsula with no real understanding or logic about Korea. South Korea was basically under a military-style dictatorship for the 1st 40 years or so of its existence and they were brutal to their enemies. Yes, North Korea is using its pursuit of nuclear weapons as a defensive measure. Of course, as flawed as South Korea is, North Korea is in a far, far worse situation. It is using nukes to defend itself, but think about what sort of regime it is defending. Is Gowans aware of how North Korea uses its limited economic resources? The sanctions hurt the country, but the money it can bring in goes not only to the military, but also to its elites for their excesses.
If you have to get this book, don’t pay any money for it. If someone gifts this to you, save it for kindling and/or when you need emergency toilet paper, and then question your standing with the person who would give it to you. For Gowans, if you are going to put yourself completely in the pocket of North Korea, at least use some of their descriptions. Spice up the writing by more generous references to “Yankee Bastards” and comparing South Korean leaders to “lap dogs”. The logic that because North Korea is anti-US, they must be better is almost as bad as the US figuring as long as a country was anti-commie, they must be ok…surely not the point Gowans wanted to make.
December 6, 2022
A sobering reappraisal of the political situation in Korea, looking at it in terms of a failed and repressed attempt at decolonisation.
Rather than analysing the Korean war by looking at the years 1950-53, Gowans starts his analysis way back at the beginning of the 20th century, when Korea came under a brutal Japanese colonial and fascist occupation. During this occupation, he explains, there grew a division between anti-colonial rebels on the one hand, and pro-japanese collaborators on the other, consisting of fascist police and paramilitaries as well as the brutal and repressive landlord class they used to rule over the majority of Koreans, who were kept in a state of impoverishment and serfdom.
When the Japanese fascists left following WWII, the rebels enjoyed immense popularity, being the only major group representing ordinary Koreans. They organised people's committees, which were majority made up of peasants, and carried out land reform, passing ownership of land to the farmers themselves, rather than the class of feudal lords, and disbanded the police organisations set up by the Japanese to keep Koreans toiling under their landlords and keep Korea safe for foreign investment. When the US came into Korea in 1945, they came to defend this same social order that the Japanese had, much like their role in Vietnam with the French 20 years later. Using the same tactics they used in Vietnam, they set up a military run police state, rehinstated the Japanese-organised police and paramilitaries, and set in motion a purge that killed 100,000 Korean leftists in the south, while in the north the people's committees remained in power with the guerilla leader Kim Il-Sung at their head.
Meticulously sourced and passionately argued, Gowans puts forward an analysis completely at odds with the standard western remembering of the Korean war as an instance of a Stalinist puppet regime installed to repress the Korean people, showing that Kim Il-Sung was a popular leader heading an independent social and decolonial revolution longed for by the majority of Koreans, while in the South the US installed and backed a puppet military regime designed to continue the Japanese-run status quo of foreign domination. He's a bit verbose at times, I had to google more than a few words, but the substance of the argument is amazing. Spanning from pre WW-1 to the modern day, Gowans utilises a realist perspective to elucidate a widely misunderstood and heavily propagandised part of the world in a clear and consise way. Essential reading for anyone trying to understand the Korean situation
Rather than analysing the Korean war by looking at the years 1950-53, Gowans starts his analysis way back at the beginning of the 20th century, when Korea came under a brutal Japanese colonial and fascist occupation. During this occupation, he explains, there grew a division between anti-colonial rebels on the one hand, and pro-japanese collaborators on the other, consisting of fascist police and paramilitaries as well as the brutal and repressive landlord class they used to rule over the majority of Koreans, who were kept in a state of impoverishment and serfdom.
When the Japanese fascists left following WWII, the rebels enjoyed immense popularity, being the only major group representing ordinary Koreans. They organised people's committees, which were majority made up of peasants, and carried out land reform, passing ownership of land to the farmers themselves, rather than the class of feudal lords, and disbanded the police organisations set up by the Japanese to keep Koreans toiling under their landlords and keep Korea safe for foreign investment. When the US came into Korea in 1945, they came to defend this same social order that the Japanese had, much like their role in Vietnam with the French 20 years later. Using the same tactics they used in Vietnam, they set up a military run police state, rehinstated the Japanese-organised police and paramilitaries, and set in motion a purge that killed 100,000 Korean leftists in the south, while in the north the people's committees remained in power with the guerilla leader Kim Il-Sung at their head.
Meticulously sourced and passionately argued, Gowans puts forward an analysis completely at odds with the standard western remembering of the Korean war as an instance of a Stalinist puppet regime installed to repress the Korean people, showing that Kim Il-Sung was a popular leader heading an independent social and decolonial revolution longed for by the majority of Koreans, while in the South the US installed and backed a puppet military regime designed to continue the Japanese-run status quo of foreign domination. He's a bit verbose at times, I had to google more than a few words, but the substance of the argument is amazing. Spanning from pre WW-1 to the modern day, Gowans utilises a realist perspective to elucidate a widely misunderstood and heavily propagandised part of the world in a clear and consise way. Essential reading for anyone trying to understand the Korean situation
February 12, 2024
What “Stasi State or Socialist Paradise?” did for the perception of the DDR among many Western leftists, this book has the potential to be for perceptions of the DPRK. As eye-opening and well informed as it is, it’s just not quite it. This is undoubtedly due to the sheer-faced mountain of anti-DPRK propaganda pumped into the West like the bread fumes pumped out of a Subway; one book can only do so much to combat this.
My only main criticism is at times Gowans tends to go on a bit and can be a bit repetitive at times, but to a certain extent I can’t blame him seeing as he’s making such large and divisive arguments in such a public way.
Worth a read.
My only main criticism is at times Gowans tends to go on a bit and can be a bit repetitive at times, but to a certain extent I can’t blame him seeing as he’s making such large and divisive arguments in such a public way.
Worth a read.
July 6, 2025
very good book about how the korean peninsula as well as the entire world has been forcefully shaped by american capital.
August 7, 2025
This book made me very sad and angry that the reputation and physical state of NK has been dragged through hell and back. I know how horrible and evil the US is but the extent of what the US has done to Korea. Diabolical. It is only time before the dying empire will fall. It has made me much more determined and firm!!
Also he is an amazing writer.
Also he is an amazing writer.
April 19, 2021
Reading books about history can sometimes be frustrating due to the lack of historical context. You need to know what’s going on elsewhere in the world to fully understand what’s happening in one section of the world. Patriots, Traitors, and Empires is a fantastic read that gives a great history of the world and Korea’s place in it starting around WWI and going up to present day. If you want to learn more about how North and South Korea came to be and the United States role in that split, read this book now. Unlike my other reviews I actually bought a physical copy of this book because after reading part of the first chapter on my phone I was immediately engrossed and knew I needed to own this book. I actually need to buy another copy because I marked my first one up too much. This is barely a review but it’s dangerously close to being too long to fit into one screenshot for me to post on twitter to show people that I read books. Read this book! 10/10
June 26, 2019
informative, but author can get a bit repetitious. otherwise it's an important read that upends the popular perception of the dprk, rok, and america's role in the conflict, countering the propaganda disseminated by the american empire in what the author calls the epistemology of ignorance.
November 23, 2024
Wow. Quite the eye opener.
A well researched and easy to understand book which lays bare the hypocrisy of the so called 'Rules based orders' and explains the very real and lifelong struggles of people who want to be emancipated. A must read to counter Washington's limitless propaganda!
A well researched and easy to understand book which lays bare the hypocrisy of the so called 'Rules based orders' and explains the very real and lifelong struggles of people who want to be emancipated. A must read to counter Washington's limitless propaganda!
January 28, 2022
a little repetitive at times and some points about the DPRK i disagree with personally (whispering: it's because i'm a maoist but overall a very good account of the war and provided much needed modern context to the conflict. i went into it initially expecting a structured historical account, which wasn't really what i got, but still!!
August 18, 2024
The story of real Korea.
February 1, 2025
I won't shut up about this one
March 10, 2026
This review’s gonna be a long one.
PDF of this text available for free here: https://kfausa.org/wp-content/uploads...
This book is an absolute banger. HIGHLY recommend for anyone interested in the history of Korea, actually learning something about North Korea outside of the propagandistic slop we’re fed by U.S. media, and the current geopolitical realities of the Korean peninsula. It can go a long way in helping less informed readers understand how the immense military and economic pressure that the U.S. empire exerts upon North Korea have shaped its history and continue to shape its economy and development. It’s also a great resource for anyone interested in American imperialism writ large, and anyone who might not have a strong understanding of the causes or underlying motivations behind U.S. military interventionism and hegemony, but who is interested in learning.
This text includes a number of chapters solely devoted to explaining the mechanisms, political-economic motivations, and ideological conditioning which prop up the U.S.’s system of world domination. It’s also valuable in that it can help to deprogram those who have fallen victim to the constant lies, rhetorical warping of reality, and demonization of the DPRK (North Korea) which the vast majority of Americans are subject to from a young age. We are not taught the history of Korea from anything but a pro-imperialist, pro-American, anti-DPRK perspective, and are at all times beset by what Gowans terms an “epistemology of ignorance”:
This book is a very good resource in countering that epistemology of ignorance: it reveals, in clear and digestible terms, why the U.S. is imperialist, the effects of U.S. imperialism, and why imperialism is utterly inseparable from domestic politics and issues within the imperial core/metropole. Americans, in general, are completely uneducated (or perhaps miseducated) about the DPRK, and it can be really hard to push past that initial barrier of conditioning and actually look at the Korean peninsula with eyes willing to see.
Gowans’s book would be a really great jumping off point for just this: it reveals in extensive detail the concrete, very real ways in which the ROK (South Korea) remains, to this day, a U.S. puppet regime, whose politics and economy are dominated by “hydra-like” family-owned corporate enterprises such as Samsung or Hyundai, whose military remains under the operational control of the United States, and which retains a permanent U.S. military occupational presence (numbered some 30,000 troops at the time this was written). It covers the complex partition of Korea after WW2, including the Soviet-American agreement to withdraw from the peninsula after a predetermined timeframe and allow Koreans the right to self-determination and to build their own post-colonial society for Koreans: an agreement which the Soviets actually honored, while the U.S. did not. Regarding the subversion and denial of Korean self-determination by the U.S. empire and its south Korean puppet regime, Gowans says:
Gowans shows, time and time again through actual concrete historical data and meticulous sourcing, that U.S. military occupation is and has always been unpopular amongst the Korean people. The U.S.’s actions, in Korea but also in virtually any of the dozens upon dozens of countries it has militarily or covertly intervened in, are deeply undemocratic, spit in the face of self-determination or democracy or freedom or any of the things the U.S. claims to support in order to justify its actions on the world stage, are fundamentally anti-human, and should be absolutely unacceptable to anyone who claims to have even a modicum of respect for human life, dignity, or well-being.
The U.S., of course, continues to have an enormous military presence in Korea today, regularly holding massive, sabre-rattling wargames designed to intimidate and provoke the DPRK, and retaining operational control of the entire south Korean military. Rather than allow the Korean masses to have control of their land and their post-colonial nation building project, the U.S. decided (in the name of profits and anticommunism) to form an anti-democratic military dictatorship in the south, not withdraw their troops, and then murder 3 million Koreans in one of the most heinous, appalling wars of American aggression that has ever been waged. The chapter on the Korean war was particularly affecting, and reveals the sheer brutality of American military intervention: a good reminder in the context of the current American war of aggression on Iran. Gowans states:
And regarding the human cost of American invasion:
And then, regarding the U.S.’s modern-day stance towards the DPRK:
There is much hand-wringing in the U.S. about the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact (which Gowan lays out in meticulous detail) that the U.S. military, and indeed, the ROK military (which, again, the U.S. retains operational control over), vastly exceed the DPRK’s in both numbers and technology, and would easily be able to annihilate the country if not for the nuclear deterrent (much as they did in Libya or Iraq). There’s an excellent chapter later in the book about the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons, supporting the fact that the DPRK’s nuclear arsenal is very clearly only defensive, pointing out the insane double standards in international law regarding nuclear non-proliferation and the U.S.’s strong-arming and disregard for that international law, and instances throughout history in which the U.S. has been able to invade and destroy states counter to its global hegemony specifically because they did not possess nuclear deterrents. Regarding this topic, Gowans says:
I’m always interested in rhetoric and rhetorical studies, and this book had some great writing on the topic. The DPRK is portrayed in U.S. media as an insane rogue state, capable and willing to launch a nuclear strike at any moment, one which starves its people and wants to destroy the west. This is, of course, a naive and childish way of viewing a sovereign country, one which ignores history and material facts and realities, which are:
-That North Korea has repeatedly called for peaceful, diplomatic reunification with an arrangement that would allow the south to retain its capitalist system but would eject U.S. military occupation: a proposal that the U.S. has met, time and time again, with belligerence and utter refusal to allow Koreans to determine the fate of Korea.
-That North Korea has been subject to crushing U.S. sanctions and economic strangulation, whose specific stated goal is to effect suffering and hardship amongst the regular masses of the country so as to cause regime change, and to trick Americans into attributing the DPRK’s economic hardships to socialism “simply not working” rather than the reality, which is American economic warfare.
-That North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and indeed its entire military force, cannot be reasonably seen as anything other than a defensive tool against the most aggressive and advanced military force in human history, the only one which has used nuclear weapons on human beings, the one which introduced nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula and had them directly pointed at North Korea for decades, and one which completely flattened North Korea in its invasion of 1950-1953.
-And that South Korea remains to this day a U.S. puppet regime, whose working masses (much like our own in the U.S.) are consistently denied access to information about North Korea; a puppet regime which has throughout its history killed, imprisoned, and tortured thousands upon thousands of left-wing dissidents while under U.S.-backed military dictatorship, whose right to self-determination and democratic control of their own land post-colonialism was stolen, and whose political system is dominated by enormous family-owned mega-corporations, U.S. generals, and descendants of ultra-right wing collaborators with Japanese colonialism.
Regarding South Korea’s status as a U.S. puppet regime, Gowans (rightly) makes a strong point of U.S. operational control (“op-con”) of the ROK’s military. The U.S. stations 30,000 troops on South Korean soil to this day, but since Washington has op-con if war breaks out, the entire 600,000-strong South Korean military can (and should) also be understood as American troops who would be fighting an American war under American command for American political-economic aims. American control of South Korea’s military (and its many instances of installing military dictators to crush left-wing, anti-colonial dissent) is at the crux of why South Korea remains a U.S. puppet state. Gowans says:
I’m going a little long on this review here, but this is really an excellent text with much more content, historical context, and information about the DPRK than I can possibly provide in a Goodreads review. I will also say that the section on sanctions and economic warfare was a highlight of the text for me, as sanctions are a critical aspect of American imperialism and something everyone should understand if they are to understand how the U.S. maintains its global hegemony. For more on the DPRK outside of this text, I would also highly recommend the YouTube channel “DPRK Explained”, the organization Nodutdol (https://nodutdol.org/) and any of Ju-Hyun Park’s appearances on the excellent Guerrilla History podcast, as well as the chapter on the DPRK in the excellent book Sanctions as War.
PDF of this text available for free here: https://kfausa.org/wp-content/uploads...
This book is an absolute banger. HIGHLY recommend for anyone interested in the history of Korea, actually learning something about North Korea outside of the propagandistic slop we’re fed by U.S. media, and the current geopolitical realities of the Korean peninsula. It can go a long way in helping less informed readers understand how the immense military and economic pressure that the U.S. empire exerts upon North Korea have shaped its history and continue to shape its economy and development. It’s also a great resource for anyone interested in American imperialism writ large, and anyone who might not have a strong understanding of the causes or underlying motivations behind U.S. military interventionism and hegemony, but who is interested in learning.
This text includes a number of chapters solely devoted to explaining the mechanisms, political-economic motivations, and ideological conditioning which prop up the U.S.’s system of world domination. It’s also valuable in that it can help to deprogram those who have fallen victim to the constant lies, rhetorical warping of reality, and demonization of the DPRK (North Korea) which the vast majority of Americans are subject to from a young age. We are not taught the history of Korea from anything but a pro-imperialist, pro-American, anti-DPRK perspective, and are at all times beset by what Gowans terms an “epistemology of ignorance”:
“Mills’ view, while related to liberalism and race, also illuminates the divergence between the idea of the equality of nations, codified in the United Nations Charter, and the reality of imperialism. The ‘officially sanctioned reality is divergent from actual reality.’ Therefore, one ‘has to learn to see the world wrongly, but with the assurance that this set of mistaken perceptions will be validated by’ the official ‘epistemic authority,’ namely, corporate-funded think-tanks, corporate-endowed universities, corporate-owned mass media, and corporate-dominated governments. Thus, on matters related to foreign relations, the official ideology prescribes an inverted epistemology, an epistemology of ignorance, which produces the ironic outcome that the denizens of imperialist countries will in general be unable to understand the world their countries have made.”
This book is a very good resource in countering that epistemology of ignorance: it reveals, in clear and digestible terms, why the U.S. is imperialist, the effects of U.S. imperialism, and why imperialism is utterly inseparable from domestic politics and issues within the imperial core/metropole. Americans, in general, are completely uneducated (or perhaps miseducated) about the DPRK, and it can be really hard to push past that initial barrier of conditioning and actually look at the Korean peninsula with eyes willing to see.
Gowans’s book would be a really great jumping off point for just this: it reveals in extensive detail the concrete, very real ways in which the ROK (South Korea) remains, to this day, a U.S. puppet regime, whose politics and economy are dominated by “hydra-like” family-owned corporate enterprises such as Samsung or Hyundai, whose military remains under the operational control of the United States, and which retains a permanent U.S. military occupational presence (numbered some 30,000 troops at the time this was written). It covers the complex partition of Korea after WW2, including the Soviet-American agreement to withdraw from the peninsula after a predetermined timeframe and allow Koreans the right to self-determination and to build their own post-colonial society for Koreans: an agreement which the Soviets actually honored, while the U.S. did not. Regarding the subversion and denial of Korean self-determination by the U.S. empire and its south Korean puppet regime, Gowans says:
“The movement against foreign domination of Korea and for what the historian Hakim Adi calls a ‘people-centered’ economy was strong enough that despite the regular unimpeded operation of the oppressive instruments of the National Security Law and the secret police, the anti-communist state continued to be threatened by the unremitting democratic demands of South Koreans. These demands included the exit of US forces from Korea and an economy that was responsive to the needs of ordinary people. Whenever pressure for these democratic goals exceeded a red line, the army would oust the civilian government and install a flag officer as president, all with the implicit approval of the US government, whose military commander on the peninsula had operational control of the ROK army. Washington’s interest in the suppression of the democratic demands of Koreans was obvious: it desired a continued US military presence on the peninsula to contain and possibly roll back communism, not only in Korea, but in contiguous China and Russia, as well. Korea was a valuable, geopolitically strategic perch from which the American eagle could overlook communist prey. And the Wall Street bankers and lawyers who played a central role in US policy formulation certainly didn’t want all of Korea converting to a people-centered economy. It was bad enough that the Koreans of the north had taken the socialist path.” (p. 146)
Gowans shows, time and time again through actual concrete historical data and meticulous sourcing, that U.S. military occupation is and has always been unpopular amongst the Korean people. The U.S.’s actions, in Korea but also in virtually any of the dozens upon dozens of countries it has militarily or covertly intervened in, are deeply undemocratic, spit in the face of self-determination or democracy or freedom or any of the things the U.S. claims to support in order to justify its actions on the world stage, are fundamentally anti-human, and should be absolutely unacceptable to anyone who claims to have even a modicum of respect for human life, dignity, or well-being.
The U.S., of course, continues to have an enormous military presence in Korea today, regularly holding massive, sabre-rattling wargames designed to intimidate and provoke the DPRK, and retaining operational control of the entire south Korean military. Rather than allow the Korean masses to have control of their land and their post-colonial nation building project, the U.S. decided (in the name of profits and anticommunism) to form an anti-democratic military dictatorship in the south, not withdraw their troops, and then murder 3 million Koreans in one of the most heinous, appalling wars of American aggression that has ever been waged. The chapter on the Korean war was particularly affecting, and reveals the sheer brutality of American military intervention: a good reminder in the context of the current American war of aggression on Iran. Gowans states:
"Stunned by the collapse of MacArthur’s forces at the hands of a lightly armed army of peasants, Truman declared a national emergency, and MacArthur called for a nuclear strike, importuning the president to authorize the use of 50 nuclear bombs to reverse the setback. Truman declined. But for the next two years the United States set about producing, by conventional means, the equivalent destruction of many nuclear attacks. MacArthur called on US bombers to create a wasteland, ordering the use of incendiaries to burn to the ground every city, every village, and every factory between the 38th parallel and the Chinese border. US ‘planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea—that is, essentially on North Korea—including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to 503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of World War II. The number of Korean dead, injured, or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population,’ wrote historian Charles Armstrong.” (p. 130)
And regarding the human cost of American invasion:
“The number of fatalities produced by the war can only be estimated. Estimates range from 3 to 4.5 million, with Koreans accounting for 2.3 to 3 million deaths. Chinese fatalities in the war ranged from an estimated 600,000 to one million. US fatalities were a comparatively insignificant 36,574, one to two percent of the total. Given that the population of Korea in 1950 was approximately 20 million, the war destroyed 10 to 15 percent of the population. Charles Armstrong estimates that the fraction of Koreans killed is in the range of ‘the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II.’ About 2.3 million Japanese perished in the Pacific War, or roughly three percent of the population, much lower than the Korean fatality rate in the 1950-1953 holocaust. Curtis LeMay, who directed the terror bombing, estimated that ‘Over a period of three years or so, we killed off—what—20 percent of the population.’ It’s not clear whether LeMay’s figure was based on a methodical estimate. It was offered more than 30 years after the war ended, and may have been only a very rough guess. In any event, whether 10 percent or 20 percent, it’s clear that the United States exterminated a significant proportion of the Korean population.” (p. 131).
And then, regarding the U.S.’s modern-day stance towards the DPRK:
“US officials have exhibited no restraint ever since, in threatening to carry out additional demographic holocausts against Koreans of the north. Wesley Clark, for example, a US general who commanded NATO forces in Europe and led NATO’s air war on Yugoslavia in 1999, warned DPRK leaders that the United States had the capability to completely destroy North Korea; it ‘would literally cease to exist’ he said. In 1995, Colin Powell, who had served as chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and would later serve as US secretary of state, warned the DPRK that the United States had the means to turn North Korea into ‘a charcoal briquette.’ In 2017, US Senator John McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned the DPRK that the price of acting ‘in an aggressive fashion … will be extinction.’ For his part, US president Donald Trump ‘warned that if North Korea threatened the United States or its allies, Washington would have ‘no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.’” (pp. 131-132)
There is much hand-wringing in the U.S. about the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons, ignoring the fact (which Gowan lays out in meticulous detail) that the U.S. military, and indeed, the ROK military (which, again, the U.S. retains operational control over), vastly exceed the DPRK’s in both numbers and technology, and would easily be able to annihilate the country if not for the nuclear deterrent (much as they did in Libya or Iraq). There’s an excellent chapter later in the book about the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons, supporting the fact that the DPRK’s nuclear arsenal is very clearly only defensive, pointing out the insane double standards in international law regarding nuclear non-proliferation and the U.S.’s strong-arming and disregard for that international law, and instances throughout history in which the U.S. has been able to invade and destroy states counter to its global hegemony specifically because they did not possess nuclear deterrents. Regarding this topic, Gowans says:
“If the United States possesses the awesome power to completely destroy North Korea (for a second time) why doesn’t it use it? The answer is because it cannot do so without incurring a considerable cost, and because there is a less costly alternative, which is therefore more attractive. Although North Korea was burned to the ground in the early 1950s, the United States failed to eliminate the DPRK as a state. North Koreans know the Korean War as the Great Fatherland Liberation War, to mark the liberation of northern Korea after its brief occupation by US, ROK, and other US imperial forces. Destroying a country’s infrastructure, killing millions of its people, and driving the survivors into underground redoubts, may be within the grasp of the United States, but bringing about the surrender of a people is another matter. What’s more, because Seoul, a city of some 25 million, is within range of North Korean artillery, a US-ROK attack on the DPRK would trigger a counterattack resulting in significant cost to Washington’s puppet state in lost and crippled lives and damaged infrastructure. The more attractive option, from the US point of view, is the continued two pronged campaign of warfare against the North Korean economy, in which DPRK industry is starved of inputs while the KPA is forced to draw resources from the civilian economy in order to deter possible attacks materializing from the planned and surprise US-led war games.” (p. 219)
I’m always interested in rhetoric and rhetorical studies, and this book had some great writing on the topic. The DPRK is portrayed in U.S. media as an insane rogue state, capable and willing to launch a nuclear strike at any moment, one which starves its people and wants to destroy the west. This is, of course, a naive and childish way of viewing a sovereign country, one which ignores history and material facts and realities, which are:
-That North Korea has repeatedly called for peaceful, diplomatic reunification with an arrangement that would allow the south to retain its capitalist system but would eject U.S. military occupation: a proposal that the U.S. has met, time and time again, with belligerence and utter refusal to allow Koreans to determine the fate of Korea.
-That North Korea has been subject to crushing U.S. sanctions and economic strangulation, whose specific stated goal is to effect suffering and hardship amongst the regular masses of the country so as to cause regime change, and to trick Americans into attributing the DPRK’s economic hardships to socialism “simply not working” rather than the reality, which is American economic warfare.
-That North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, and indeed its entire military force, cannot be reasonably seen as anything other than a defensive tool against the most aggressive and advanced military force in human history, the only one which has used nuclear weapons on human beings, the one which introduced nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula and had them directly pointed at North Korea for decades, and one which completely flattened North Korea in its invasion of 1950-1953.
-And that South Korea remains to this day a U.S. puppet regime, whose working masses (much like our own in the U.S.) are consistently denied access to information about North Korea; a puppet regime which has throughout its history killed, imprisoned, and tortured thousands upon thousands of left-wing dissidents while under U.S.-backed military dictatorship, whose right to self-determination and democratic control of their own land post-colonialism was stolen, and whose political system is dominated by enormous family-owned mega-corporations, U.S. generals, and descendants of ultra-right wing collaborators with Japanese colonialism.
Regarding South Korea’s status as a U.S. puppet regime, Gowans (rightly) makes a strong point of U.S. operational control (“op-con”) of the ROK’s military. The U.S. stations 30,000 troops on South Korean soil to this day, but since Washington has op-con if war breaks out, the entire 600,000-strong South Korean military can (and should) also be understood as American troops who would be fighting an American war under American command for American political-economic aims. American control of South Korea’s military (and its many instances of installing military dictators to crush left-wing, anti-colonial dissent) is at the crux of why South Korea remains a U.S. puppet state. Gowans says:
“In 1994, South Koreans were granted command of their military, but during peacetime alone. At a time of war, command would revert to a US general.
There is an important question of sovereignty here. A country whose military is under foreign command can hardly be said to be sovereign. Indeed, no less than a former commander of US forces in Korea, General Richard Stilwell, described US operational control as the “most remarkable concession of sovereignty in the entire world.” Many South Koreans were embittered by their country’s flagrant abnegation of sovereignty to the United States, and the transfer of peacetime operational control of their military was a concession to them—though one of limited significance.
A military exists to wage war. War-making can be defensive, what it’s supposed to be, or aggressive, what it shouldn’t be, but almost invariably is where the United States is concerned. Andrew Bacevich, a US historian and retired career US Army officer, points out that the function of the US military is not self defense, but “power projection”—the use, or threat, of violence to impose Washington’s will on other countries … Washington’s granting the ROK control of the South Korean military in peacetime, i.e., when it’s not fulfilling its primary power projection function, is tantamount to the United States yielding control of an asset when it’s not in use but insisting on full command when it’s needed. In other words, Washington’s ceding peacetime operational control of its East Asian army in reserve—a military which has been historically used as a US auxiliary power projection force in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq—was nothing more than a sop to mollify South Koreans.” (pp. 154-155)
I’m going a little long on this review here, but this is really an excellent text with much more content, historical context, and information about the DPRK than I can possibly provide in a Goodreads review. I will also say that the section on sanctions and economic warfare was a highlight of the text for me, as sanctions are a critical aspect of American imperialism and something everyone should understand if they are to understand how the U.S. maintains its global hegemony. For more on the DPRK outside of this text, I would also highly recommend the YouTube channel “DPRK Explained”, the organization Nodutdol (https://nodutdol.org/) and any of Ju-Hyun Park’s appearances on the excellent Guerrilla History podcast, as well as the chapter on the DPRK in the excellent book Sanctions as War.
July 19, 2018
As far as an introductory glance into the modern (early 20th century onwards) history of the Korean Peninsula is concerned, Stephen Gowans does incredibly well in Patriots, Traitors, and Empires. The book is concise, clear, and easy to read. Gowans illustrates a history of Korea that has been brutalized, exploited, and occupied for decades, thus explaining the emergence of a resistance movement as typified by the "patriot" Kim Il-Sung. Conversely, Gowans is excellent in covering the history of the ROK (South Korea) as a puppet state, exploring its establishment and continued existence through the lens of a collaborator class.
Whereas Gowans maintains a fairly accessible style, there are moments where flowery prose overwhelms a point being made. Poetic language can be good, but it is used here in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Furthermore, Gowans for me loses credibility when comparing the DPRK to other anti-imperialist nation-states like Saddam's Iraq (which Gowans describes as an Arab socialist state. Firstly, while the Iraq War was no doubt an imperialist endeavour, it must be noted that Saddam himself was a puppet of Empire much like the ROK, as best typified in his role during the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, Saddam did not lose the favour of his US masters until 1990, where his invasion of Kuwait threatened US oil supply, especially if he further advanced into Saudi Arabia. Secondly, at no point was Iraq under Saddam Arab socialist. Many on the left tend to err by either a) conflating anti-imperialism with socialism and b) conflating Baathism with socialism. On point a, while US intervention must be opposed on principles of anti-imperialism alone, it is not right to assume all enemies of US are socialist by nature. In fact, Saddam himself used US supplied weapons to commit genocide on the Iraqi Kurdish population in the north and the Shi'ites in the south (Anfal campaign, Halabja). On point b, Baathism contains certain socialist tendencies. However, this ignores decades of Middle Eastern history including the Baathist split into the Syrian and Iraqi camps in the 60's, as well as Baathism's turn to hardline Arabism and Arab nationalism in a region that contains many ethnic minorities. Thus, for me this book loses credibility on that basis.
In conclusion, I would still suggest this book as a great primer on Korean history and the current Korean situation, though I would urge caution and recommend further books beyond this text.
Whereas Gowans maintains a fairly accessible style, there are moments where flowery prose overwhelms a point being made. Poetic language can be good, but it is used here in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Furthermore, Gowans for me loses credibility when comparing the DPRK to other anti-imperialist nation-states like Saddam's Iraq (which Gowans describes as an Arab socialist state. Firstly, while the Iraq War was no doubt an imperialist endeavour, it must be noted that Saddam himself was a puppet of Empire much like the ROK, as best typified in his role during the Iran-Iraq War. In fact, Saddam did not lose the favour of his US masters until 1990, where his invasion of Kuwait threatened US oil supply, especially if he further advanced into Saudi Arabia. Secondly, at no point was Iraq under Saddam Arab socialist. Many on the left tend to err by either a) conflating anti-imperialism with socialism and b) conflating Baathism with socialism. On point a, while US intervention must be opposed on principles of anti-imperialism alone, it is not right to assume all enemies of US are socialist by nature. In fact, Saddam himself used US supplied weapons to commit genocide on the Iraqi Kurdish population in the north and the Shi'ites in the south (Anfal campaign, Halabja). On point b, Baathism contains certain socialist tendencies. However, this ignores decades of Middle Eastern history including the Baathist split into the Syrian and Iraqi camps in the 60's, as well as Baathism's turn to hardline Arabism and Arab nationalism in a region that contains many ethnic minorities. Thus, for me this book loses credibility on that basis.
In conclusion, I would still suggest this book as a great primer on Korean history and the current Korean situation, though I would urge caution and recommend further books beyond this text.
Read
March 27, 2025I'm seeking to deepen my knowledge on Korea's history and the DPRK's development as Europe (with support from its puppetmaster the US) gears up and arms itself for war with China, which will no doubt be waged on the peninsula. It is imperative that we mobilize and oppose any coming attempts at aggression towards the DPRK and China and that we stand with our comrades in this struggle.
I chose Gowans as my intro as I was looking for an overview before delving deeper and I can recommend this as a starting point on the DPRK and the United States' imperial grip on the area! I'll continue my study with Bruce Cumings, who Gowans quotes extensively from, and Suzy Kim.
Two gripes: I have issues with his use of "leftist" in some chapters, or even the concept of "leftism", I don't believe those are descriptors useful for serious analysis, on top of that I find it disrespectful to call the 5 million(!) Koreans that were slaughtered by ROK forces with help of the US military "leftists", they were revolutionaries, they were communists. They were eradicated in a coordinated, deliberate Holocaust precisely because they were revolutionaries or suspected communists, which Gowans also points out! So I don't see the need to use an asinine descriptor such as "leftist" there. I can overlook this as he does generally use "communist" where accurate elsewhere.
A bigger problem for me is a quotation of Lenin (cited below), it seems to me cherry-picked from State and Revolution in a way that both reduces Lenin's point to what he was debunking in State and Revolution and accidentally(!) lends credence to anti-DPRK propaganda. I think this stood out to me mainly because Gowans seems to be writing for less knowledgable readers and as he does a good job of defending and disseminating communism for readers throughout the rest of this book, I think clarity on what is meant is important!
Gowan, pg 185: "Instead, the DPRK constitution guarantees that all “able-bodied citizens may choose occupations in accordance with their wishes and skills” and further requires that North Koreans be “paid in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work,” a basic socialist principle. Lenin gave the principle a biblical flourish, quoting Paul the Apostle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
It's not a principle quite the way the Lenin quotation after presents it here. I fully realize I'm being pedantic but I find the implications in Gowans' errant quoting of Lenin there irresponsible and find it actually contributes to the misunderstanding that he's trying to avoid, and if I'm a reader who grew up hearing the DPRK deliberately starves its citizens and kills those who refuse to work this would do nothing to dispel that. It would've been a completely sufficient and factual paragraph without the last sentence tacked on! Or he could've used this as a perfect jumping off point to quickly explain why the DPRK is stuck in this state, socialism- because it cannot transition to full communism, where all people are taken care of regardless of work, as long as the United States (and further, a global capitalist dictatorship) exist, which would've furthered and deepened his analysis! Full Lenin quote below.
Lenin, pg 127, State and Revolution: "The first phase of communism [socialism], therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of person by person will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production—the factories, machines, land, etc.—and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle’s petit-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods “according to the amount of labor performed” (and not according to needs).
The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our" Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists. Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of human beings, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of “bourgeois laws” that continues to prevail so long as products are divided “according to the amount of labor performed.”
Continuing, Marx says: "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."
And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) “bourgeois law” is not abolished in its entirety but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained—that is, only with respect to the means of production. “Bourgeois law” recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent—and to that extent alone—“bourgeois law” disappears. However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned: it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) of the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle “he who does not work shall not eat” is already realized; the other socialist principle, “an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor,” is also already realized. But this is not yet communism and it does not yet abolish “bourgeois law,” which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a “defect,” says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism, for if we are not to indulge in utopianism we must not think that, having overthrown capitalism, people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law."
I chose Gowans as my intro as I was looking for an overview before delving deeper and I can recommend this as a starting point on the DPRK and the United States' imperial grip on the area! I'll continue my study with Bruce Cumings, who Gowans quotes extensively from, and Suzy Kim.
Two gripes: I have issues with his use of "leftist" in some chapters, or even the concept of "leftism", I don't believe those are descriptors useful for serious analysis, on top of that I find it disrespectful to call the 5 million(!) Koreans that were slaughtered by ROK forces with help of the US military "leftists", they were revolutionaries, they were communists. They were eradicated in a coordinated, deliberate Holocaust precisely because they were revolutionaries or suspected communists, which Gowans also points out! So I don't see the need to use an asinine descriptor such as "leftist" there. I can overlook this as he does generally use "communist" where accurate elsewhere.
A bigger problem for me is a quotation of Lenin (cited below), it seems to me cherry-picked from State and Revolution in a way that both reduces Lenin's point to what he was debunking in State and Revolution and accidentally(!) lends credence to anti-DPRK propaganda. I think this stood out to me mainly because Gowans seems to be writing for less knowledgable readers and as he does a good job of defending and disseminating communism for readers throughout the rest of this book, I think clarity on what is meant is important!
Gowan, pg 185: "Instead, the DPRK constitution guarantees that all “able-bodied citizens may choose occupations in accordance with their wishes and skills” and further requires that North Koreans be “paid in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work,” a basic socialist principle. Lenin gave the principle a biblical flourish, quoting Paul the Apostle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
It's not a principle quite the way the Lenin quotation after presents it here. I fully realize I'm being pedantic but I find the implications in Gowans' errant quoting of Lenin there irresponsible and find it actually contributes to the misunderstanding that he's trying to avoid, and if I'm a reader who grew up hearing the DPRK deliberately starves its citizens and kills those who refuse to work this would do nothing to dispel that. It would've been a completely sufficient and factual paragraph without the last sentence tacked on! Or he could've used this as a perfect jumping off point to quickly explain why the DPRK is stuck in this state, socialism- because it cannot transition to full communism, where all people are taken care of regardless of work, as long as the United States (and further, a global capitalist dictatorship) exist, which would've furthered and deepened his analysis! Full Lenin quote below.
Lenin, pg 127, State and Revolution: "The first phase of communism [socialism], therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of person by person will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production—the factories, machines, land, etc.—and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle’s petit-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods “according to the amount of labor performed” (and not according to needs).
The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our" Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists. Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of human beings, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of “bourgeois laws” that continues to prevail so long as products are divided “according to the amount of labor performed.”
Continuing, Marx says: "But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."
And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) “bourgeois law” is not abolished in its entirety but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained—that is, only with respect to the means of production. “Bourgeois law” recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent—and to that extent alone—“bourgeois law” disappears. However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned: it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) of the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle “he who does not work shall not eat” is already realized; the other socialist principle, “an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor,” is also already realized. But this is not yet communism and it does not yet abolish “bourgeois law,” which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a “defect,” says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism, for if we are not to indulge in utopianism we must not think that, having overthrown capitalism, people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law."
December 29, 2020
Really intriguing book that provides an alternative perspective on the Korean War and the DPRK. The writing is slightly exaggerated and Gowans repeats himself a lot, but overall its a great look at an important geopolitical issue.
February 9, 2025
The mere mention of North Korea can evoke a flurry of negative reactions when mentioned in conversation. The country is ever presented as a threat to world peace with its limited nuclear arsenal and the leaders of the country are constantly ridiculed in news media and entertainment alike. Yet, what if there was more to the story than what is presented to Western audiences? In ‘Patriots, Traitors and Empires’ Stephen Gowans takes the reader on a deeper dive into the modern history of Korea, a history which has been omitted and meticulously curated in the West.
To understand modern Korean history, we should start at its beginning, perhaps with the leaders of both South Korea and North Korea. Kim Il-Sung the first leader of the North was a resistance fighter, he spent over a decade fighting a guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation of Korea. While Kim Il-Sung was fighting to free his homeland, the first leader of the South, Syngman Rhee spent his life in comfort in the United States where he went to ivy league institutions and his only claim to power was that he was flown in by the United States in the aftermath of WWII. As a reader, what do you think when presented with these facts?
While propaganda is a powerful tool, I believe that the masses are rational and when presented with facts in a clear and concise manner, people’s outlooks on issues can change. In his book Stephen Gowans provides a thorough and well sourced history of modern Korea. Gowans’ book is not a hagiography, it is intended to provide a balance sheet for the reader where they can sort through the linked history of North Korea and United States and eventually make their own conclusions. While Gowans can get repetitive at times, his book is a well-sourced and fairly easy to read modern history book. I would highly recommend for readers who are learning about anti-imperialism or history from a Global South perspective.
To understand modern Korean history, we should start at its beginning, perhaps with the leaders of both South Korea and North Korea. Kim Il-Sung the first leader of the North was a resistance fighter, he spent over a decade fighting a guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation of Korea. While Kim Il-Sung was fighting to free his homeland, the first leader of the South, Syngman Rhee spent his life in comfort in the United States where he went to ivy league institutions and his only claim to power was that he was flown in by the United States in the aftermath of WWII. As a reader, what do you think when presented with these facts?
While propaganda is a powerful tool, I believe that the masses are rational and when presented with facts in a clear and concise manner, people’s outlooks on issues can change. In his book Stephen Gowans provides a thorough and well sourced history of modern Korea. Gowans’ book is not a hagiography, it is intended to provide a balance sheet for the reader where they can sort through the linked history of North Korea and United States and eventually make their own conclusions. While Gowans can get repetitive at times, his book is a well-sourced and fairly easy to read modern history book. I would highly recommend for readers who are learning about anti-imperialism or history from a Global South perspective.
October 22, 2023
This book has a modern feel to it, (as it should, published in 2018), and so it has much more of a charged unashamedly pro-DPRK tilt to its narrative. While I appreciate the information and the perspective of liberal academics who attempt to be neutral like Bruce Cumings, this book more matches the anti-imperialist spirit of Marxism Leninism and lays out the historical context behind the DPRK's struggle against America. Most other books about North Korea have a decidedly anti-DPRK bias towards it, so it's refreshing to see a book that truly captures the perspective of the North Korean narrative of the events of the past century.
Gowans gives the context of western imperialism as a whole, and so this is not just important for understanding the Korean history with America, but of how western imperialism functioned throughout the 20th century, and the machinations behind American imperialism after WW2 in their Cold War policy against the Soviet Union. In many ways, American foreign policy was shaped by its involvement in Korea, when it created the CIA and started to manipulate mass media against global South countries fighting for their independence under the guise of "spreading and protecting Democracy". America's hypocrisy is analyzed fully under the microscope of this lens and when you fully understand the Korean situation, you understand America's policy in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in Latin America, in Africa, really all over the world.
I would recommend this book as a starting point for any Korean person wanting to know the truth about their country's history in the past 100 years, and anyone else who wants to know how the American war and propaganda machine operates.
Gowans gives the context of western imperialism as a whole, and so this is not just important for understanding the Korean history with America, but of how western imperialism functioned throughout the 20th century, and the machinations behind American imperialism after WW2 in their Cold War policy against the Soviet Union. In many ways, American foreign policy was shaped by its involvement in Korea, when it created the CIA and started to manipulate mass media against global South countries fighting for their independence under the guise of "spreading and protecting Democracy". America's hypocrisy is analyzed fully under the microscope of this lens and when you fully understand the Korean situation, you understand America's policy in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in Latin America, in Africa, really all over the world.
I would recommend this book as a starting point for any Korean person wanting to know the truth about their country's history in the past 100 years, and anyone else who wants to know how the American war and propaganda machine operates.
May 9, 2022
Though repetitious at times, the points being repeated are essential to understanding the history of the Korean Peninsula over the past 120 years. The book clearly outlines its arguments and is steadfast in providing quotes and citations to support the author's views. When faced with the overwhelming anecdotal and statistical evidence presented in this volume, even the most staunch 'America the Great' liberal would be hardpressed to deny the imperialist nature of the United States division of Korea, as well as its invasions of the nation, and its subsequent occupation of the southern half of the country. The nuclear deterrent option which the DPRK has pursued in the past two decades is less belligerent than it is common sense when presented with the options the socialist nation has been forced into by the always encroaching American (and allied) military outposts & exercises, combined with brutal sanctions meant to starve the people within north Korea. Like The Jakarta Method, this book argues that America's global policy of anticommunism at all costs flew in the face of its purported values of self-determination, but unlike The Jakarta Method, this book is written from a Marxist viewpoint and outlines in much more clear ideological and material/geopolitical terms why these clashes come to pass between the imperialist American capitalists and the Korean patriots fighting for their homeland's liberation from ALL oppressor states, not just the Japanese.
November 4, 2022
This book is a wonderful look into the Korean war, its history as a colonized nation, and the consequences of such events today. It covers a lot of this ground fairly briefly, and provides adequate context about the nations involved(Japan and U.S. as colonizers). Maybe it's a tad biased, but it is very well sourced and provides a deeper insight to an often misunderstood and mislabeled nation. It does get into some fairly gruesome subject matter though, so I should warn anyone who may be sensitive to war crimes, death, and human suffering. As for my criticisms: It can be a little redundant at times. Some facts are brought up throughout the book that make it slightly redundant to read. Also, anyone who already realizes that the U.S. is an imperialist empire, will have to listen to Gowan's explanation. And the structure of the book is maybe a little goofy, with some events not being as fleshed out or the author jumping between ideas, but its not so bad as to be of great distraction.
Overall, this is a valid read for anyone who wants to understand North Korea, its history, and why it is the way that it is.
Overall, this is a valid read for anyone who wants to understand North Korea, its history, and why it is the way that it is.
February 9, 2026
A clear, polemical primer on the constant struggle for Korea's freedom primarily against US imperialism through the lens of the DPRK
The discussion of Korea's historical struggle against first Japanese and later US imperialism, which relies heavily on the work of Bruce Cumings, was interesting while remaining lucid for someone with little background knowledge on the topic
The Korean War/625 War/Fatherland Liberation War was well contextualised as was the Political Partition of Korea in which the ROK would serve as a US neocolony and its success in capitalist production, aided by its coloniser, would demonstrate the supposed flaws of following an alternative, socialist path
The last chapter covering the policy of byungjin where building a nuclear arsenal would secure the DPRK from American aggression and let it focus on economic growth was also compelling, especially when compared with the decisions of a range of other non-capitalist states including Iraq, Libya, China and Cuba
Highly recommended introductory read to anyone interested in Korea
The discussion of Korea's historical struggle against first Japanese and later US imperialism, which relies heavily on the work of Bruce Cumings, was interesting while remaining lucid for someone with little background knowledge on the topic
The Korean War/625 War/Fatherland Liberation War was well contextualised as was the Political Partition of Korea in which the ROK would serve as a US neocolony and its success in capitalist production, aided by its coloniser, would demonstrate the supposed flaws of following an alternative, socialist path
The last chapter covering the policy of byungjin where building a nuclear arsenal would secure the DPRK from American aggression and let it focus on economic growth was also compelling, especially when compared with the decisions of a range of other non-capitalist states including Iraq, Libya, China and Cuba
Highly recommended introductory read to anyone interested in Korea
October 27, 2021
El libro es una recopilación de acontecimientos en la península de Corea, desde su ocupación por el Imperio Japonés a finales del siglo XIX hasta la actualidad, pasando por la guerra de guerrillas liderada por Kim Il-Sung en Manchuria, la división de las Coreas, la ocupación por parte de los Americanos y la Guerra de Corea.
Es una historia de patriotas (Corea del Norte), de traidores (sudcoreanos serviles a los imperios y a la burguesía local e internacional) y de imperios (EE.UU. y Japón.)
En tiempos donde la propaganda anti-Corea del Norte es pan de cada día, creo que éste libro provee el contexto necesario para entender el otro lado de la moneda cuando se trata de las relaciones entre las Coreas, EE.UU. y el mundo, incluyendo la necesidad crítica del programa nuclear de Pyongang como medio de sobrevivencia.
Es una historia de patriotas (Corea del Norte), de traidores (sudcoreanos serviles a los imperios y a la burguesía local e internacional) y de imperios (EE.UU. y Japón.)
En tiempos donde la propaganda anti-Corea del Norte es pan de cada día, creo que éste libro provee el contexto necesario para entender el otro lado de la moneda cuando se trata de las relaciones entre las Coreas, EE.UU. y el mundo, incluyendo la necesidad crítica del programa nuclear de Pyongang como medio de sobrevivencia.
March 13, 2026
"the problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of US supremacy - the tacit but clear modern philosophy which assigns to the United States hegemony over the world and assumed that other countries will either be content to serve the interests of the United States' dominant economic class or die out before its all-conquering march"
this was a hell of a book and unabashedly written, props to the author. i came into this book knowing very, very little about Korea so i feel like i learned a TON. a bit repetitive at times, but when you're making such a divisive argument (i'm not sure if that's the right word to use, but i am using it, so f off) you kind of have to make sure to cover your bases and really hammer your point home. so i'm not mad about the repetition, i think it's warranted. WOOF. i have a lot to think about thanks to this book.
this was a hell of a book and unabashedly written, props to the author. i came into this book knowing very, very little about Korea so i feel like i learned a TON. a bit repetitive at times, but when you're making such a divisive argument (i'm not sure if that's the right word to use, but i am using it, so f off) you kind of have to make sure to cover your bases and really hammer your point home. so i'm not mad about the repetition, i think it's warranted. WOOF. i have a lot to think about thanks to this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews