일제 측 정보 자료를 통해 본 1920년대 金星淑의 활동 궤적과 사상

Abstract

This study aims to examine the trajectory and thought of Kim Seong-suk’s activities in the 1920s by using information materials from the Japanese authorities. After the March 1st Movement, I would like to analyze the thought of Kim Seong-suk by focusing on the reason why Kim Seong-suk chose Beijing, China as an overseas activity site, and focusing on the magazine “Revolution” in Beijing. In particular, it pointed out the problems of the research that had been centered on Kim Yong-chan and Yang Myung in the previous 『Revolution』, and this magazine demonstrated that Kim Seong-suk actively expressed his attention and argument as the main editor. In the process, the third volume of 『Revolution』 was newly introduced to academia. After Kim Seong-suk studied in Beijing, the first to appear in the Japanese documents is Kito Katsumi’s March 1925 report. After studying abroad in Beijing in early 1923, Kim Seong-suk took the lead in the student society in Beijing during 1924, and since 1925, with financial support from the Communist Party of China and the Soviet embassy, ​​he published the magazine 『Revolution』. He presented his communist theories in this magazine. He moved to Guangzhou, which emerged as the center of the Chinese revolution in early 1926, and participated in the Chinese Communist Revolutionary Movement by preparing for the armed independence movement until December 1927. After the failure of Canton Uprising, he graduated from Sun Yat-sen University in 1928 and fled to Shanghai. In 1930, he returned to the Korean revolutionary society as a Japanese professor at Sun Yat-sen University. Although he was a communist theorist, he was convinced that the independence movement in colonial Korea should be pursued according to a method suitable for the reality of Korea. He insisted that he should be in solidarity with the communists of the Soviet Union, China, and Japan, but that the central axis should be considered from the point of view of Korea in the colonial reality. For this reason, he was able to not fall into that dogma while believing in the theory of communism. Rather than representing the position of any one faction, he tried to find a strategy for a unified independence movement through discussion. Still, he was very confident in his movement until he took part in the 1927 Canton Uprising. He thought that only the armed struggle centered on the proletariat could bring independence, that the Chinese revolution was imminent, and that the Chinese revolution would succeed first, which would further strengthen Korea’s capacity for independence. Therefore, he actively participated in supporting the Chinese revolution. His convictions were so strong during this period that the abyss caused by the failure of the Canton Uprising would have been even deeper. On the other hand, the encounter with Hegel’s thought in the process of forming Kim’s ideology shows that he transformed from a monk to an independence activist, and that the derivation of the strategy of the independence movement that regards violence as an art is not inconsistent with Buddhist values. To him, violence did not simply mean physical force to punish the enemy, but was perceived as a process that must be passed in order to be born anew, abandoning the past ‘conservative, passive, fatal, past-centric, male-centric, and feudal’ values. The driving force behind his independence movement was the belief that ‘destruction is the mother of creation’, and that an independent Korea should be created as a ‘new Korea’ that is completely different from the past. However, the failure of the Canton Uprising, the death of many Korean youths, and the meeting with a woman named Du Junhui are expected to bring about a new ordeal and a change of reflection and perception for him. This will be another research task in illuminating the life and thoughts of Kim Seong-suk.