Why does the story of an internet forum post I read a while ago come to mind? The story goes like this. It's a piece a man in his 30s wrote recalling his memories of his mid-20s, and most of it is taken up by what he experienced doing business in Miari after his military discharge, on a friend's advice. 'Miari' is a red-light district. There this man sold honey tea; the cost was only 30-40 won, but he sold it for 1,000 won each. He said he targeted and sold it to 'men coming out after spending the night.' In that process, the prostitutes would tell their colleagues to buy honey tea too, boosting sales — and that's how the man made money; doing this for a long time, before he knew it they became familiar with each other, talked, and grew close enough. So as he got to know them more deeply, he learned that most of the women in the red-light district had come there due to 'social factors' like 'family circumstances' or 'the environmental factors of their home,' and he helps them escape. The reason I brought up this story is that I want to share my thoughts about the 'women' who worked in the red-light district. Whether they really entered the 'red-light district' by their own will. Of course, there are probably many now who entered by their own will. But even back then, surely a considerable number entered not voluntarily but because they had no choice?
If I were to point out the fundamental cause of Mr. Jensen becoming a 'non-regular worker,' I'd call it a 'social factor.' People standing as the 'winners' of capitalism say that those who became dropouts did so because they didn't try. They say there are, after all, some — though few — who are 'self-made.' But I oppose that thinking. When I was bad at studying — that is, when I was a so-called 'dropout' — the support for people like me was extremely scant. I wondered whether society is just like that, but beyond that I agonized a great deal over whether a society for 'survival of the fittest' is a true society. No conclusion came, but I gained one conviction: that a true winner is not one who climbs by trampling others, but that a true society is one that presents alternatives for those who fail.
Another piece that came to mind dealt with the structural contradictions of capitalism. It was a piece written by someone at a Daum café called 'Songha Bigyeol,' which said that 'capitalism' fundamentally reaches 'equilibrium' only when production equals demand — that is, only when supply and demand match — and that since most nations/societies fail to match production and demand, how to handle the resulting 'surplus production' is capitalism's task to solve. Until now this surplus production has been mainly absorbed by developing countries such as in South America, Southeast Asia, India, and China, but as those countries' power in international society grows, handling this surplus production is also getting harder. The writer said this is the beginning of capitalism's collapse, and I couldn't help agreeing with that view.
I don't like the part where Mr. Jensen takes receiving unemployment benefits for granted. Because rather than receiving benefits just because he became unemployed, he should be thinking about getting a job again and earning money by working. But even that support is currently scant in our country. Unemployment benefits do come out, but whether one can sustain a continuous life on them is highly doubtful. Because the amount comes out for far too short a period.
If it's as my father says, going all-in on one field can let you make a living and gain recognition, but I doubt whether I can adapt to such a society. I've always stood on the side of the weak. Then I happened to do well once on the college entrance exam, and now I seem to be in the position of a 'winner' to some degree. So it irritates me even more. Because I really dislike the contradictory structure and society where winners treat the weak from a winner's standpoint. They didn't consider the dropouts. Because even I wasn't considered. I have an earnest desire to change that.
As someone who likes 'protests,' setting aside the absurdity of what happened to Mr. Jensen, I wanted to find meaning in the fact that he 'protested.' Because I think a protest is the most suitable way for many to express their will. Nothing has as great a ripple effect as a protest, and nothing is as easy to make known to people. 'Modern society' is individualism, they said. So if it's not their own affair, people turn a blind eye, pass by, and take no interest. That's why 'protests' don't happen well, and people figure it's enough if just I live well. But I protest. I protested in high school, and now that I'm a college student I still protest. To change the world, to look after the dropouts, for the 'people' who inevitably ended up that way because of their surrounding circumstances.
Comments 0
No comments yet. Be the first.