비정규직 노동자 투쟁의 승패와 조직력 변화 (The success and failure of non-regular workers' struggles and their effects on organizational strength)
-
- 산업노동연구
- /
- 제17권1호
- /
- pp.139-176
- /
- 2011
-
민주노조운동과 노동계급 형성의 후퇴기에 비정규직 노동자들이 투쟁과 함께 새로운 계급형성의 잠재적 주체로 등장했다. 하지만 주체 형성의 효과는 아직 나타나지 않고 있다. 그렇다면, 왜 투쟁은 성과를 내지 못했는가? 어떤 변인들과 인과적 메커니즘을 통해 투쟁의 성과가 결정되는가? 이러한 물음들에 대한 답변을 구하는 것이 본 연구의 목적이다. 정규직 투쟁에 비해 비정규직 투쟁은 자본의 공세에 대응하는 수세적 방어적 성격이 짙고, 생산현장 접근성 제약으로 파업 투쟁 이외의 방식에 의존하며, 사측의 비타협성으로 인해 장기화되고, 교착상태를 타개하기 위해 극단적 투쟁 방식에 호소하며, 정규직 연대 확보가 어려워 외부연대에 크게 의존하는 차별성을 지니고 있다. 비정규직 투쟁은 승리보다는 패배, 조직력 강화보다는 약화로 귀결되는 경향이 강하다. 패배 경향성을 상쇄하고 승리하기 위해서는 비정규직 주체들의 조직 동원 역량과 정규직 노조의 연대가 절대적으로 필요한 조건이며, 강력한 사회적 연대나 위치적 권력은 정규직 연대의 대체재 역할을 할 수 있다. 또한, 투쟁이 조직력 강화로 이어지기 위해서는 투쟁의 승리가 필요하지만 투쟁의 승리로 쟁취한 정규직화가 승리의 덫이 될 수도 있다. 정규직 노조의 연대와 투쟁 주체의 내적 통합은 비정규직 투쟁이 승리하고 조직력을 강화하는데 크게 기여하는 것으로 나타났다. 투쟁을 전개하는 부분은 비정규직 노동자들 가운데 조직력이 가장 강한 부분인데 이들이 투쟁 과정에서 조직력 위축 혹은 조직 와해를 겪으면서 비정규직 주체 형성을 어렵게 한 것이다. 하지만, 비정규직 투쟁이 없었더라면 자본의 공세가 그대로 관철되었을 것이라는 점에서 비정규직 투쟁은 적어도 자본의 공세를 약화 혹은 지연시킨 효과는 거두었다고 할 수 있다. 또한 유형 설정자 역할의 부담 속에서 강경투쟁 전략과 양보타협 전략 사이의 투쟁 전략 딜레마는 투쟁 주체의 분열을 심화하여 투쟁의 승패와 조직력 변화에 부정적 영향을 미치게 된다. 비정규직 투쟁의 실천적 함의는 비정규직 투쟁의 궁극적 목표를 노동계급 형성을 위한 주체형성으로 재정의한다면 비정규직 투쟁의 전략적 목표는 당면 요구조건의 완전한 쟁취보다 조직의 보전 강화에 두는 것이 합리적 선택이라는 점이다.
Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.
경제력집중(經濟力集中)은 경제적(經濟的) 자원(資源)과 수단(手段)의 상당부분이 소수의 경독주체(經瀆主體)에 집중되어 이들이 자원배분(資源配分)의 흐름에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있는 상태를 말한다. 그러므로 경제력집중(經濟力集中)은 본질상 자유시장기구(自由市場機構)의 생리와는 부합하지 않지만 자본주의(資本主義)의 역사로 볼 때 그것이 바로 자유경쟁(自由競爭)의 소산이라는 측면도 있다는 점이 문제가 된다. 구미(歐美)와 일본(日本) 등에 있어서 자본주의체제(資本主義體制)의 진화궤적(進化軌跡)은 이 문제가 어떻게 전개되는가에 따라 결정되어 왔다. 우리나라에서의 경제역집중(經濟力集中)은 다수의 독(獨) 과점적(寡占的) 대기업(大企業)들이 소유관계(所有關係)로 결합되어 있는 기업집단(企業集團) 즉 소위 재벌(財閥)의 문제로 집약될 수 있다. 우리나라의 기업집단(企業集團)의 성장은 시장기구(市場機構)의 작동결과에 기인한 면도 있지만 고도경제성장기(高度經濟成長期)의 정부정책(政府政策)에 의하여 촉진된 것도 부인할 수 없다. 기업집단(企業集團)에 의한 경제력집중(經濟力集中)은 과거 우리나라의 정치(政治) 경제(經濟) 사회(社會)가 거쳐온 진화과정(進化過程)을 집약적으로 나타내는 것 이다. 그러므로 우리나라에서 민주주의(民主主義)와 자본주의(資本主義)의 이념(理念)과 질서(秩序)에 대한 국민적(國民的) 합의(合意)를 모색하려는 현시점에서 경제력집중(經濟力集中)을 객관적으로 인식하여 효율(效率)과 형평(衡平)을 조화하는 적절한 대응방향을 모색 하는 것은 매우 긴요한 과제이다.