Dear Sabri, MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I explain shortly Japanese new left movement. In pre-war and post-war to 1962, Japan communist party ruled left movement. But its strategy was under Komintern order. In 1950', Komintern ordered armed struggle from rural area modeled after China's revolution. But in Japan, buffered area such as Colombia, Nikaragua, or Ziapas in Mexico, did not exist. So military section of party became scattered and surrendered. In 7th central committee, party was split into two groups , one insisted in peace revolution participating in congress and non-violent peace movement. and another remained to insist armed struggle, and escaped to china. So Remaining sect in Japan ruled party. But although, wild range anti-war(Korea war), anti-US movements emerged with mass violence, party leaders suppress, neglect, and oppose these movements, because leader insisted " peace" movement. So within party, especially university cells, dissident grew, finally tort from central committee and build new party called as communist league(BUND). This party led and intervened various social movements. In 1960, when security league between US-Japan is to plan modify to military league, BUND reject this league ,led mass movement and many members plunged into congress, and intercepted US president's coming. After violent oppression including Japanese communist party, BUND spilt into several sects, but in 1967, under Vietnam war, when several sects associated and tried to stop PM's action to participate in Vietnam war, armed struggle began again on the urban street, followed by occupying universities in whole country. This process continued 3 years long, and oppressed by total congress- oriented parties including socialist party, communist party, using police and self-defence military force. many members went into underground and continued armed struggle. But gradually there appeared difference of political and social strategies within underground group and scattered. On the other side, University occupying mass students went to ecology, worker's or consumer cooperative, rural communities rebuilding etc. So currently very wide range social movements continues including ex-underground member. And we now try to integrate and build vision of complete new communism. It does not depend on orthodox marxism, in thought, organization, and strategy. BUND adopted Lenin's strategy, but also this idea abandoned. in organization, we prefer network-type, such as Al-Qaeuda, but lenin's party was in reality network-type, although through Stalin, idea of Lenin's original thought lost and most of us believed in Lenin's type of party incorrectly. For example, in Lenin's party, regional committee did not exist, and end cell member could directly debate in central committee. In thought , we prefer "association society" as a stage to communism. So we respect ongoing social movements as element of social revolution with social soul. In contrary to orthodox marxists, we think we already exist within revolutionary society, and to takeover political power will come in the end. Below is Marx's idea on social revolution. Please beware Marx distinguished social revolution with social soul from social revolution with political soul. The more powerful a state and hence the more political a nation, the less inclined it is to explain the general principle governing social ills and to seek out their causes by looking at the principle of the state -- i.e., at the actual organization of society of which the state is the active, self-conscious and official expression. Political understanding is just political understanding because its thought does not transcend the limits of politics. The sharper and livelier it is, the more incapable is it of comprehending social problems. The classical period of political understanding is the French Revolution. Far from identifying the principle of the state as the source of social ills, the heroes of the French Revolution held social ills to be the source of political problems. Thus Robespierre regarded great wealth and great poverty as an obstacle to pure democracy. He therefore wished to establish a universal system of Spartan frugality. The principle of politics is the will. The more one-sided -- i.e., the more prefect -- political understanding is, the more completely it puts its faith in the omnipotence of the will the blinder it is towards the natural and spiritual limitations of the will, the more incapable it becomes of discovering the real source of the evils of society. No further arguments are needed to prove that when the "Prussian" claims that "the political understanding" is destined "to uncover the roots of social want in Germany" he is indulging in vain illusions. It was foolish to expect the King of Prussia to exhibit a power not possessed by the Convention and Napoleon combined; it was foolish to expect him to possess a vision which could cross all political frontiers, a vision with which our clever "Prussian" is no better endowed than is his King. The entire declaration was all the more foolish as our "Prussian" admits: Fine words and fine sentiments are cheap, insight and successful actions are dear; in this case they are more than dear, they are quite unobtainable. If they are quite unobtainable then we should acknowledge the efforts of everyone who does what is possible in a given situation. For the rest I leave it to the reader's tact to determine whether the commercial jargon of "cheap", "dear", "more than dear", "unobtainable", are to be included in the category of "fine words" and "fine sentiments". Even if we assume then that the "Prussian's" remarks about the German government and the German bourgeoisie -- the latter is presumably to be included in "German society" -- are well-founded, does this mean that this segment of society is more perplexed in Germany than in England and France? Is it possible to be more perplexed than in England, for example, where perplexity has been erected into a system? If workers' uprisings were to break out today all over England, the bourgeoisie and the government would not have any better solutions than those that were open to them in the last third of the 18th century. Their only solution is physical force and since the efficacy of physical force declines in geometric proportion to the growth of pauperism and of the proletariat's understanding, the perplexity of the English necessarily increases in geometric proportion, too. Lastly, it is false, factually false, that the German bourgeoisie wholly fails to appreciate the general significance of the Silesian revolt. In a number of town, the masters are making attempts to associate themselves with the journeymen. All the liberal German papers, the organs of the liberal bourgeoisie, are overflowing with statements about the organization of labor, the reform of society, criticism of monopolies and competition, etc. All as a result of the workers' movements. The newspapers of Trier, Aachen, Cologne, Wesel, Mannheim, Breslau, and even Berlin are publishing often quite sensible articles on social questions from which our "Prussian" could well profit. Indeed, letters from Germany constantly express surprise at the lack of bourgeois resistance to social ideas and tendencies.
