Postwar Japan and Shinzo Koizumi: On the 50th Anniversary of His Death

2017/04/01

Hello. I give lectures on all sorts of topics, but today is particularly difficult. With so many people here who knew Shinzo Koizumi well or who are researching him, I feel quite uncertain, but today I would like to talk about Shinzo Koizumi as I see him, under the title "Postwar Japan and Shinzo Koizumi."

Shinzo Koizumi passed away in May 1966. I entered university in April 1966, so it was just one month later. I am deeply moved to think that 50 years have passed since then, but I believe this is a very important time to consider how we view Shinzo Koizumi in the present era.

Today, since I know nothing about economics, I have narrowed my focus to topics that I have some connection to when thinking about postwar Japan and Shinzo Koizumi: his critique of communism, his theories on peace, and finally, his relationship with the Imperial Household.

Why did I choose the title "Postwar Japan and Shinzo Koizumi"? It is because I deeply feel the magnitude of the role Shinzo Koizumi played in the postwar academic and intellectual world, and the scale of the influence he exerted during the 20 years after the war, when the framework of Japan was being built. Young people today probably cannot imagine it. Since I was born after the war, I only know of it through books, but immediately after the end of the war, the influence of Marxism and communism was immense. It was not limited to politics and economics; it had a broad and powerful influence extending even to literature. In such an environment, I believe we need to consider what kind of role Shinzo Koizumi played.

After the war, there was a trend of viewing the older generation who had been active before the war as completely a thing of the past. Philosophers like Tetsuro Watsuji and Yoshishige Abe, and legal philosopher Kotaro Tanaka, were all categorized as the old generation, and their influence was seen as having weakened. However, I do not believe that was the case at all. In the volume titled "Neo-Conservatism" (1963) in Chikuma Shobo's "Modern Japanese Thought System" series, Kentaro Hayashi wrote a commentary on Shinzo Koizumi. I think this is very concise yet hits the mark.

"Mr. Shinzo Koizumi was a pioneer of Marxist critique in our country, and his achievements possess a height that remains unsurpassed to this day. Around 1907, at Keio University, Mr. Koizumi learned about Marx from Tokuzo Fukuda, who is said to be the first person in Japan to read 'Das Kapital' in its original language. His understanding of Marx predates even that of Hajime Kawakami, who is called Japan's greatest Marxist scholar. Furthermore, unlike many Japanese scholars who encountered Marxism, Mr. Koizumi approached Marx's theories with a scholarly attitude from the very beginning."

The greatest characteristic of Mr. Koizumi was that even if someone was an intellectual opponent with different claims and ideologies, his scholarly attitude toward them was extremely rigorous and fair. I believe this is what characterizes Mr. Koizumi most. For example, Hajime Kawakami was a very eccentric man, and people like Hakucho Masamune criticized him thoroughly. However, the critique of Hajime Kawakami written by Mr. Koizumi is very polite and quite moving. Shinzo Koizumi maintained that attitude until the end.

It is also a famous story that he frequently protected Eitaro Noro, who was a communist. I believe he brilliantly maintained his fairness. I believe this is the fundamental attitude of a researcher and the most important attitude of an educator. At that time, there were critiques of Marx's labor theory of value even in Europe. However, he did not simply import and write those critiques; he clarified the contradictions in Marx's theory of value through comparative research with figures like Ricardo, whom he translated himself.

Koizumi also engaged in many debates with Hitoshi Yamakawa, Hajime Kawakami, Tamizo Kushida, and others. However, according to Mr. Hayashi, his understanding of 'Das Kapital' far surpassed that of both Yamakawa and Kawakami. Furthermore, as a critic of Marxism, Shinzo Koizumi did not stop at critiquing economic theory; he extended his critique to theories of the state, history, and worldviews in general. And he writes that these critiques reached a level of classical perfection in each field. Kentaro Hayashi was a historian who served as a professor and president of the University of Tokyo, but he was a Marxist before the war and converted after the war. Even this former Marxist, Kentaro Hayashi, evaluated him in this way.

"When 'Common Sense in the Critique of Communism' was published as a book in 1949, it gained an unprecedented readership for him, and Marxists were shocked to see the emergence of a great enemy nation here."

Shinzo Koizumi was that formidable a person to his intellectual opponents.

In fact, the preface to the book "50 Years After Marx's Death," written by Shinzo Koizumi in 1933, also describes how to understand Marx.

"I am not a Marx devotee, and I have attempted opposing critiques of him on numerous occasions. However, I believe it is impossible for writers of my age or younger today to not know Marx or to not feel his influence at all. ... Indeed, Marxism contains many exaggerations, biases, dogmas, and contradictions, and pointing these out is not necessarily a difficult task. However, despite these flaws, 'Das Kapital'—written with prophetic intuition, revolutionary passion, and extraordinary, penetrating reasoning, and added to this, based on unparalleled diligence in researching literature—should perhaps be granted the status of the greatest contribution to economics in the second half of the 19th century."

I think reading just this preface reveals Koizumi's personality and scholarly attitude.

He also wrote, "Generally, highly original authors do not read much, and those who read much usually lack originality, but in Marx, these two are unusually combined to a sufficient degree." When Shinzo Koizumi critiques an enemy, there is a kind of rule. As he did with Hajime Kawakami, he always lists the opponent's strengths and pays respect before delivering a harsh critique. This is a method we must learn from.

When I give comments on television, I should say things like, "This person is a wonderful person. However, there is this problem." But because there is no time, I end up only doing the critiquing (laughs). This is not very good. If you are going to critique, you must understand properly.

He also wrote, "Marx is considered difficult to understand. I do not necessarily agree with that. I think the label of 'difficult' has hindered quite normal and clear interpretations. I think there have been many instances where readers, unable to simply accept something, overthought it, assuming there must be some profound logic, and ended up with interpretations that were like fighting with one's own shadow." That still applies today.

"In any case, it goes without saying that 'Das Kapital' and other works are by no means easy books in terms of their conclusions and terminology. It is no wonder it took years to understand them. And those who believe they have finally grasped the essence through deep and careful reading naturally start by focusing on exposition and defense. The work of the majority of Marxists in the 50 years since Marx's death has consisted entirely of this exposition and defense, and with few exceptions, they have not yet reached the point of starting from Marx while critiquing him without hesitation, pointing out his flaws, inadequacies, exaggerations, and contradictions to boldly state their own views."

Come to think of it, I feel that this tendency still exists today, far beyond "50 years after his death."

Thus, the books on the critique of Marxism written after the war, including "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism," have not changed one bit from "50 Years After Marx's Death" written in 1933. You could say he was that consistent.

"Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" was written in 1949. It is a collection of pieces written for various magazines. It became a huge bestseller, and through this book, along with "Marxism and I" in 1950 and "Communism and Respect for Humanity" in 1951, Koizumi vigorously developed his critique of communism and Marxism.

In the preface to "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism," he writes the following:

"I believe the author's position regarding Marx-Leninism is already known to the reader. For many years, I have been seen as belonging to the opposing camp. However, in critiquing Marx-Leninism, I have above all strived for rigor and have been most careful not to make assertions without evidence. In a small booklet like this, I could not discuss by quoting the original texts in detail, but I intended to handle the theories and claims of Marx and Lenin by correctly understanding their true intent, and I have never taken advantage of their careless slips of the tongue."

He likely wrote this in the preface because he felt he had to make his principled position clear. Conversely, I see it as a critique of the fact that there were so many works that did not do so.

What kind of period was it when "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" was written? Japan was still in the midst of the occupation. The center-left coalition governments of Tetsu Katayama and Hitoshi Ashida had collapsed, leading to the second Yoshida Cabinet, and in the elections in December of the previous year, the Communist Party's seats jumped from 4 to 35.

He writes in the preface:

"Between the completion of the manuscript for this book and the writing of this preface today, a general election was held, and a significant advance by the Japan Communist Party appeared. Anyone must admit that this success is due to their possession of theory, organization, and a certain spirit, in addition to various external circumstances. In this book, I have explained why the fundamental theories they uphold are unacceptable, but I cannot defend the fact that the various political parties opposing them lack theory, lack spirit, and their practical actions shown before the people generally cannot escape the criticism of being vulgar and low-toned."

He is writing about how pathetic those who critique them are. I strongly feel that Mr. Koizumi wrote this book with a sense of frustration.

Among those called old liberals, there was a sense of unease toward the major historical background where Japan under the Meiji Constitution was being rejected and the Communist Party was surging. For example, Shigeru Nambara, President of the University of Tokyo, advocated for the Emperor's abdication.

Why did he advocate for abdication? It was not because he aimed to overthrow the imperial system. It was the idea that the current Emperor should abdicate in order to preserve the imperial system. Tatsukichi Minobe and Tetsuro Watsuji were the same. These people were all proponents of defending the imperial system. However, during this period, what was being unfolded in magazines like Iwanami's "Sekai" was a harsher critique of the imperial system. People like Masao Maruyama were like that. They were clearly different from the old liberals. In that context, it seems Mr. Koizumi felt compelled to write due to the political surge of the Communist Party.

The book "Communism and Respect for Humanity" explains very clearly why he critiques communism and his reasons for opposing it.

"First, I do not recognize the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (or all property) as a panacea for all social evils. Nor do I believe in the metaphysical assertion that the public ownership of the means of production is a promise of historical necessity. Second, even if public ownership of the means of production were desirable, I am extremely skeptical about the merits and demerits of the method of inciting class hatred and struggle to reach that goal. No, I believe the blessings that the incitement of hatred and struggle bring to humanity fall far short of the calamities they cause. Originally, suspicion and jealousy are human weaknesses. Even if it is inappropriate to compare Marxism, which takes advantage of those weaknesses and incites them to move people, to a charlatan who sells a panacea by taking advantage of a sick person's weaknesses, the comparison between the happiness brought by it and the sacrifices that must be endured for it must be sufficiently careful."

I think this is applicable to many things. This is a completely different topic, but I think the Koike administration in Tokyo is running a treadmill of reform. I wonder how long it will last. The rowing venue ended up going back to the original plan. The Toyosu Market issue will probably end up being Toyosu. There is no other way.

There is a view that because Ms. Koike spoke up, we were able to save this much money. There were also various problems with how things were decided. One could say there was a great achievement in exposing those. However, even regarding the money issue, the costs incurred during this time are significant, as the metropolitan government has been preoccupied with this.

What I have criticized harshly on television is not that the basic things that need reform are wrong, but the problem of the method. For example, they are currently holding a review committee to reconsider all the uniforms for the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic volunteers. But whether a design is good or bad depends on each person's preference.

There is only one basis for rejecting this: whether there was a flaw in the procedure. They held a public call for young designers to participate, and it was chosen from among them. However, the review committee members are all elderly, and they are critiquing it, saying things like they showed it to their grandchildren who said they couldn't wear something so uncool (laughs). If you start saying you'll overturn something done through formal procedures and hold a review committee, there will be no end to it. I have great doubts about this.

I feel it's a bit of a waste to bring up Shinzo Koizumi in this context, but I spoke about it because I thought the thinking was somewhat similar to what Shinzo Koizumi criticized.

It is a doubt toward the idea that there is some kind of panacea that can achieve everything. How many people were sacrificed in the French Revolution? A staggering number. Whether one accepts such sacrifices as necessary. I believe Mr. Koizumi was never of that mind. He considered the magnitude of what is lost in a revolution. I suspect that was a very large motivation for writing his books critiquing communism.

In fact, a major difference between the pre-war "50 Years After Marx's Death" and post-war critiques like "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" is that as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became a major camp in the world, he gradually shifted his emphasis to include critiques of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. However, I believe his basic understanding remained the same. At a time when the Soviet Union and North Korea were being hailed as if they were paradise, the fact that he continued to offer harsh critiques, unchanged from before the war, should be highly evaluated.

Next, I will move on to "Peace Theory" (1952). In September 1951, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. However, at this time, the Cold War had already effectively begun. Churchill's Iron Curtain speech was five years prior, but as the East-West Cold War gradually intensified, there was a strong argument that unless all countries in the world signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan would again suffer great hardships, and therefore Japan should seek a comprehensive peace with all countries in the world. However, Koizumi advocated for a "majority peace" against this.

The Peace Problems Discussion Group, centered around Iwanami Shoten's "Sekai" at the time, included all the influential proponents of the comprehensive peace theory. The actual texts were written by people like Masao Maruyama. This argument was overwhelming in the academic and intellectual worlds, and at its forefront was University of Tokyo President Shigeru Nambara. Mr. Nambara was a very noble person. At that time, the presidents of the University of Tokyo were people of very fine character, like Shigeru Nambara and the next president, Tadao Yanaihara. That is why they had influence. Mr. Nambara had spent the previous year traveling around the United States, explaining why a comprehensive peace was necessary. Public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of the comprehensive peace theory. Because of that atmosphere, Shigeru Yoshida went alone to sign the treaty. It could be said he had a tragic determination to shoulder everything himself.

In response, Mr. Koizumi wrote in the preface to "Peace Theory," "In this book, from the standpoint of one who earnestly desires peace, the author has criticized the theories of neutrality and comprehensive peace that have been frequently advocated in some quarters. Such criticism has not lost its necessity at all even today, after the Peace and Security Treaties have received parliamentary approval; rather, it can be said to have become even more necessary."

"I never deny the fact that neutrality and comprehensive peace were advocated even by people who believed them to be truly for the sake of peace. However, at the same time, I know that propaganda aimed at pro-Soviet and anti-American sentiments rather than peace or neutrality is being carried out in the name of peace, and that some weak-hearted critics are aligning themselves with it."

This feels quite menacing. It makes the reader put their hand on their chest and wonder if they might be one of these weak-hearted critics. In my opinion, this is the work of a "master."

"In this book, I have attempted to make that clear. Are neutrality and comprehensive peace actually possible? Does advocating for them while knowing they are impossible actually help in the defense of peace? If these things are discussed, people will know the value of these claims for themselves. ... I desire the reality of peace rather than the name. Toward those who delight in the name and advocate for it, I can only hope, while observing their expressions, that those people will think more logically."

I won't say anything more. I will just stare at their faces. This is also quite harsh (laughs). He continues, "Toward those who have other ulterior motives and outwardly feign peace, I simply wish to point out the fact of the disguise itself." It really makes you think.

And here is the reason why he opposes it. He says in the main text: "I was opposed to the comprehensive peace theory and neutrality theory from the beginning. By 'opposed,' I do not mean that I would not want them if they were possible. I thought they were impossible propositions." He writes the following about what that specifically means. Now that the conflict between the US and the Soviet Union has become tense, suppose Japan expresses an intention of neutrality between the US and the Soviet Union. However, regardless of that, a warship from one of the belligerent nations enters a Japanese port. As a neutral country, Japan must make it leave within a certain time. That is what neutrality means. You cannot recognize the claim of one side. But if you tell them to leave and they don't comply, what will you do? Does Japan currently have the power to force them to comply? It doesn't. In that case, it means Japan is not fulfilling the obligations of one who claims neutrality.

That's true. It would mean tacitly permitting one side's warship to enter. "Regardless of the internal reality, it will be seen that neutrality was not maintained. ... At the very least, the opposing belligerent nation will not hesitate to view this as a violation of neutrality and will not hesitate to take measures it deems necessary or appropriate." Have you people thought that far ahead? Or are you just saying it with your mouths? I believe the current opposition to the security bills can be criticized using this exact same logic.

Why the opposition? Actually, there is one more reason. It is the question of how proponents of the comprehensive peace theory view responsibility. In his counter-critique of the criticisms of "Peace Theory," he writes:

"I believe that those who advocate for one thing should naturally take responsibility for the consequences that should be drawn from it. ... If one says they are opposed to any peace that is not a comprehensive peace, and yet shows no concrete proposal to make a comprehensive peace possible, then that naturally results in seeking the continuation of the occupation, and they should naturally take responsibility for this result." ("About My Peace Theory")

It is fine to advocate for a comprehensive peace theory or neutrality theory. However, these are impossible propositions. Moreover, if they cannot be done, it doesn't just end with them not being done. If the San Francisco Peace Treaty is not concluded, it means the state of occupation continues indefinitely. Is that okay? Are you not going to take responsibility? That is the point.

Looking at the postwar path, there is a decisive difference between Germany and Japan. While being divided into East and West, West Germany created a constitution called the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. When it was first established, the Basic Law did not say anything at all about having an army. However, as the Cold War gradually intensified, the question arose of what to do without an army. Since they bordered the communist bloc and Berlin was divided, it was like a certain state of war was continuing. In that context, the talk of needing a defense force emerged.

Japan, after the Korean War, went from the National Police Reserve to the National Safety Force, and then to the Self-Defense Forces, eventually possessing a de facto army. However, in reality, to have an army, the Constitution must be amended with the support of two-thirds of the Diet. Even Shigeru Yoshida answered that having an army, even for self-defense, was a violation of the Constitution. Conversely, people like Sanzo Nosaka of the Communist Party were even saying we should have one.

To amend the Constitution, a motion must be made by two-thirds of the Diet members. However, that two-thirds cannot be obtained. Ichiro Hatoyama even tried to do "Hatomander" by changing the electoral system just to get that two-thirds.

What did Germany do? In 1954 and 1956, they properly amended the Constitution (Basic Law), and West Germany established a defense force. German governments after the war have consistently been coalition governments, without a single exception. Since Germany basically has a proportional representation system, a single party never wins a majority. It is an electoral system designed to prevent a single party from taking power. This is because of the experience with the Nazis. Therefore, consistently, for example, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) always form a parliamentary group and form a coalition government with the Free Democratic Party (FDP). Or the left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) forms a coalition government with the Green Party. In this way, they have amended the Constitution 60 times so far.

Sometimes the CDU/CSU and the SPD form a grand coalition. Although the Democratic Party of Japan has become small now, it's like the DPJ of a while ago and the LDP forming a grand coalition. They then obtain two-thirds approval and amend the Constitution. And after that, they dissolve the coalition. They form a coalition government because a defense force is needed. It's not that they amend the Constitution because there is a grand coalition government. It's the opposite.

In 1968, they added emergency laws to the Basic Law through a grand coalition. Reading the German Constitution is very troublesome. Everything about what to do in the event of war is written into the Constitution. They were able to amend it by forming a grand coalition.

In Japan, however, if a cabinet minister mentions constitutional amendment, they are immediately fired, so it cannot be done. So what do we do? One way is to change the interpretation. In the past, we couldn't even have an organization for self-defense, but now we can. Since it is for the minimum necessary defense of our own country, the interpretation is that this is not the land, sea, and air forces prohibited by Article 9 of the Constitution. What we have is also interpreted as not being war potential. I wonder what the point of having something that isn't war potential is, but that's how we've managed to do it. There was no other way.

On the other hand, the LDP has always wanted to get two-thirds. When a party leader debate was held at the Japan National Press Club before the last House of Councillors election, I was the first to ask a question. I said to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, "The LDP has been trying to get two-thirds since its founding, but that is an unattainable dream. You should imitate Germany. Since constitutional amendment is the most fundamental law of the country, the ruling party and the largest opposition party must cooperate." Prime Minister Abe replied, "You are exactly right." I wanted to say, if I'm exactly right, then please do it that way, but until now Japan has been getting by through deception. What lies at the bottom of that thinking? In my opinion, it is irresponsibility. It means not taking responsibility.

At that time, I also asked Chairman Shii of the Communist Party. The Communist Party has consistently said the Self-Defense Forces are unconstitutional and should be disbanded, and the Japan-US Security Treaty should be abolished. However, saying the SDF is unconstitutional means it should not exist in this world. Nevertheless, during major earthquakes or disasters, the SDF goes to the rescue. At those times, why don't you stop them, saying the SDF must not go? Why don't you criticize them for going? I asked. What did Mr. Shii answer? "That is the contradiction of the Constitution." No, I thought it was the contradiction of the Communist Party, but I didn't say it because arguing wouldn't make for a press conference. It's strange (laughs).

Furthermore, there are many people who say the right to collective self-defense must not be recognized. Even if it is limited, they do not recognize it. They say it is a bill for going to war. US forces are in Japan based on the Japan-US Security Treaty. If they call it a "war bill," then the very presence of US forces means being dragged into war. If they oppose the security bills, why don't they first say, "US forces, please leave. We will handle Japan's defense ourselves"? They keep quiet about that. Isn't that strange? It is entirely possible to discuss current politics using the same logic Mr. Koizumi used to criticize the comprehensive peace theory.

They say that for the government to revise a cabinet decision that said the right to collective self-defense was a violation of Article 9 of the Constitution is contrary to constitutionalism. This is also strange. There is a cabinet decision stating that the Self-Defense Forces are not an unconstitutional existence. Then, is it also forbidden to revise that? Is the government's decision correct? That's what it comes down to. It's fine to have various ways of thinking, but in short, I think it doesn't make sense. It's a double standard. Those of you here today may also have various opinions. But at the very least, I think what Mr. Koizumi is criticizing is that double standards are unacceptable.

What can be derived from this? It is that people of words, including scholars, should properly take responsibility for what they have said. I also think about what a scholar should be. There is a person named Taichiro Mitani, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo. I respect him very much. This is because he writes various things about Sakuzo Yoshino and Takashi Hara from before the war, and reading them serves as a critique of current politicians and ways of thinking. This is because rigorous scholarly achievements themselves provide us with a perspective to critique the present.

However, in his recently written "How to Live Postwar Democracy," there is a critique of these security bills. Reading it, I feel it's different. I strongly feel the kind of thing Mr. Koizumi criticized. I think the important way for scholars to deal with things is to critique the current situation with a strictly scholarly attitude to the end.

Looking at it that way, I hope that "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" and "Peace Theory" will remain in a form that continues to be widely read. Looking through each of the essays this time, I was surprised by their foresight, and although it has been 50 years since Mr. Koizumi's death, I felt that they must be evaluated as overlapping perfectly with the current situation.

Regarding the third point, the relationship with the Imperial Household, I will not go into detail. Mr. Koizumi read Fukuzawa Yukichi's "On the Imperial Household" together with the current Emperor during his lectures. And he was taught what the Emperor should be by reading Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" together. Why has the Imperial Household been preserved for such a long time? It is because it exists outside of politics. "On the Imperial Household" was written in 1882, and in it, he explains what the Imperial Household is.

It begins with "The Imperial Household is something outside of the political society," and continues, "Even if the government in the Diet has two parties fighting each other like fire and water, like midsummer and severe winter, the Imperial Household alone is an eternal spring, and when the people look up to it, they should feel a relaxed sense of harmony." I believe this is the essence of the imperial system. I believe it is the greatest reason it has endured for so long.

The issue of the Emperor's abdication is currently being discussed, and I would like you to read Fukuzawa Yukichi's "On the Imperial Household." The "On the Imperial Household" written by Mr. Koizumi himself describes this in an even easier-to-understand way.

Thank you for your attention today.

(This manuscript is a revised and expanded version of a lecture given at the "Shinzo Koizumi Memorial Lecture" held on December 8, 2016.)