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 very difficult for me. While there are many people here who knew Shinzo Koizumi well or who are researching him, and I am quite lacking in confidence, 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 down my talk on Postwar Japan and Shinzo Koizumi to topics I have some connection to: his critique of communism, his theories on peace, and finally, his relationship with the Imperial Family.

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—a period when, in a sense, the framework of Japan was being built. Young people today probably cannot imagine it. Since I was born after the war, I can only know through books, but immediately after the end of the war, the influence of Marxism and communism was immense. It was not limited to the political and economic levels; 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.

In the postwar period, there was a trend to view the older generation who had been active before the war as completely a thing of the past. Figures like the philosopher Tetsuro Watsuji, Yoshishige Abe, and the 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) from the series "Modern Japanese Thought System" published by Chikuma Shobo, Kentaro Hayashi wrote a commentary on Shinzo Koizumi. I believe this is very concise yet hits the mark.

"Mr. Shinzo Koizumi was a pioneer of the critique of Marxism in our country, and his achievements possess a height that has not been surpassed 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 was earlier than 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 characterized 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 was very polite and quite moving. Shinzo Koizumi maintained that attitude until the very end.

It is also a famous story that he often 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 while conducting 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 a critique of economic theory; he extended it to theories of the state, history, and worldviews in general. And he writes that his 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 formidable enemy."

Shinzo Koizumi was that much of a fearsome figure to his intellectual opponents.

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

"I am not a Marx devotee, and I have attempted opposing criticisms of him on many occasions. However, I believe it is impossible for writers of our age or younger today not to know Marx or to 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 that, based on unparalleled diligence in literature research—should perhaps be permitted as 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 criticizes an enemy, there is a kind of rule. As was the case with Hajime Kawakami, he always lists the opponent's strengths and pays respect before criticizing them severely. 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 criticism (laughs). This is not very good. If you are going to criticize, you must understand properly.

He also wrote, "Marx is considered difficult to understand. I do not necessarily agree with that. I think that because he is called difficult, normal and clear interpretations have been hindered. Even when things could not be naturally understood by the reader, there have been many instances where people overthought and became too obsessed, believing there must be some profound logic, and ended up with interpretations akin to wrestling with oneself." That still applies today.

"However, 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 a few exceptions, they have not yet reached the point of starting from Marx while criticizing him without hesitation, pointing out his flaws, deficiencies, exaggerations, and contradictions to boldly state their own views."

Come to think of it, I feel that such a tendency still exists today, let alone "50 years after his death."

Thus, books regarding the critique of Marxism written after the war, including "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism," have not changed one bit from the 1933 work "50 Years After the Death of Marx." It can be said that 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" (1950) and "Communism and Respect for Humanity" (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 criticizing Marx-Leninism, I have above all aimed for rigor and have been most careful not to make assertions without evidence. In a small booklet like this, I could not quote 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 no intention of taking advantage of their careless slips of the tongue."

He probably 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 are so many things that are not like that.

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 election in December of the previous year, the Communist Party's seats made a huge leap from 4 to 35.

He writes this in the preface:

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

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

Among those called old liberals, there was a sense of discomfort toward the large historical background where Japan under the Meiji Constitution was being denied and the Communist Party was advancing. 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 Emperor system. It was the idea that the current Emperor should abdicate in order to preserve the Emperor system. Tatsukichi Minobe and Tetsuro Watsuji were the same. These people were all proponents of defending the Emperor system. However, during this period, what was being unfolded in magazines like Iwanami's "Sekai" was a harsher critique of the Emperor system. People like Masao Maruyama were like that. They and the old liberals were clearly different. In that context, it seems Mr. Koizumi felt compelled to write, also amidst the large political advance of the Communist Party.

The book "Communism and Respect for Humanity" explains very clearly why he criticizes 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. Also, I do not believe in the metaphysical assertion that 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 brings to humanity do not come close to its calamities. Originally, suspicion and envy are human weaknesses. Even if it is inappropriate to compare Marxism, which moves people by taking advantage of and inciting those weaknesses, 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 cautious."

I think this is applicable to many things. This is a completely different topic, but I think the Koike metropolitan administration is running a hand-to-mouth operation 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.

Some might view it as: because Ms. Koike spoke up, we were able to save this much. There were also various problems with how things were decided. Didn't she have a great achievement in bringing those to light? However, even regarding the money issue, the costs spent during this time are considerable, as the metropolitan government has been preoccupied with this.

What I criticized severely on television was 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 saying they will reconsider all the volunteer uniforms for the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics. But whether a design is good or bad depends on each person's preference.

The only basis for denying this is whether there was a flaw in the procedure. They called for public applications to have young designers participate, and it was chosen from among them. However, the review committee is full of elderly people, and they are criticizing it, saying things like when they showed it to their grandchildren, they said they couldn't wear such uncool things (laughs). If you start saying you'll overturn things done through formal procedures and hold a review committee, there will be no end to it. I have very strong doubts.

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 it was a bit similar in thought to what Shinzo Koizumi criticized.

It is a doubt toward the way of thinking that there is some kind of panacea, that if you do this, it can be done. How many people were sacrificed in the French Revolution? It is a staggering number. Whether one recognizes such sacrifices as necessary. I believe Mr. Koizumi was never like that. He considered the magnitude of what is lost in a revolution. I suspect that was a very large motivation for writing his books criticizing communism.

In fact, a major difference between the prewar "50 Years After the Death of Marx" and postwar books like "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" is that as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became a large camp in the world, he gradually shifted his emphasis to touching upon critiques of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. But I think his basic perception was the same. At a time when there was a trend to treat the Soviet Union and North Korea as if they were paradise, I think the fact that he offered harsh criticism, unchanged from before the war, should be highly evaluated.

Next, I will move on to "Theory of Peace" (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 before that, but as the East-West Cold War gradually intensified, there was a strong argument that if all the countries in the world did not sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan would again suffer miserable hardships, so a comprehensive peace should be made with all the countries in the world. However, against this, Koizumi advocated for a "majority peace."

At that time, the Peace Issues Discussion Group, centered around Iwanami Shoten's "Sekai," 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 Shigeru Nambara, president of the University of Tokyo. 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 been traveling around the United States since the previous year, 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 it was a tragic determination, in a sense, to shoulder everything himself.

In response to this, Mr. Koizumi wrote in the preface to "Theory of Peace," "In this book, from the standpoint of one who earnestly wishes for peace, the author has criticized the neutrality theory and comprehensive peace theory that have been frequently advocated in some quarters. I believe such criticism has not lost its necessity at all even today, when both the peace and security treaties have received parliamentary approval; rather, it can be said to have become even more necessary."

"I by no means deny the fact that neutrality and comprehensive peace were advocated even by people who believed them to be truly for the sake of peace. But 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 going along 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. To my mind, this is the method of a very "skilled" person.

"In this book, I have attempted to clarify that. 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 wish for the substance of peace rather than the name. Toward those who enjoy 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 this or that anymore. 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 then, the reason why he opposes it. He says in the main text, "From the beginning, I was opposed to the comprehensive peace theory and neutrality theory. By opposition, I do not mean that I would not want it if it were possible. I thought it was an impossible proposition." He writes the following about what that specifically means. Now that the confrontational relationship 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 obey? It doesn't. In that case, it means the obligations of those who advocate for neutrality are not being fulfilled.

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 see this as a violation of neutrality and will not hesitate to take measures it deems necessary or appropriate." Are you saying these things after thinking that far? Or are you just saying them with your mouth? I believe the current opposition to the security bills can be criticized with the exact same logic.

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

"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 a 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 Theory of Peace")

It is fine to advocate for a comprehensive peace theory or neutrality theory. However, this is an impossible proposition. Moreover, if it cannot be done, it cannot be settled by just saying it cannot be done. If the San Francisco Peace Treaty is not concluded, it means the state of occupation will continue indefinitely. Is that okay? It's a question of whether you will take responsibility.

Looking at the postwar progress, there is a decisive difference between Germany and Japan. While being divided into East and West, West Germany created a constitution called the Bonn Basic Law. The Bonn Basic Law at the time of its establishment did not say anything at all about having an army. However, the Cold War gradually intensified, and the question became what to do without an army. Since they were adjacent to the communist bloc and Berlin was divided, it was like a certain state of war was continuing. In such a situation, the talk of needing to have a federal defense force emerged.

After the Korean War, Japan came to have a de facto army through the transition from the Police Reserve Force to the National Safety Force and then the Self-Defense Forces. However, in reality, to have an army, one must obtain two-thirds support in the Diet and amend the Constitution. Even Shigeru Yoshida had answered that having an army, even if it were for self-defense, was a violation of the Constitution. Conversely, people like Sanzo Nosaka of the Communist Party were even saying to 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 two-thirds.

What did Germany do? In 1954 and 1956, they properly amended the Constitution (Basic Law), and West Germany came to have a federal defense force. German governments have been coalition governments consistently since the war, without a single exception. Germany basically has a proportional representation system, so a single party never takes a majority. It is an electoral system that does not let a single party take 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 that way, they have amended the Constitution 60 times so far.

Sometimes the Christian Democratic/Social Union and the Social Democratic Party form a grand coalition. Although the Democratic Party of Japan has become smaller now, it is like the DPJ of a while ago and the LDP forming a grand coalition. They obtain two-thirds approval and amend the Constitution. And after that, they dissolve the coalition. They form a coalition government because a federal defense force is necessary. It is not that they amend the Constitution because there is a grand coalition government. It is 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 case of war is written into the Constitution. They were able to amend it by forming a grand coalition.

However, in Japan, if a cabinet minister mentions constitutional amendment, they are immediately fired, so it cannot be done. So what to do? One is a change in interpretation. In the past, even an organization for self-defense could not be held, but it becomes possible. Since it is for the minimum necessary defense of one's own country, it is interpreted that these are not the land, sea, and air forces prohibited by Article 9 of the Constitution. What they have is also interpreted as not being war potential. I think, what are you doing holding something that is not war potential, but anyway, that's how they've done it. They had no other choice.

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, and 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 basic law of the country, the ruling party and the first opposition party must cooperate." Then Prime Minister Abe said, "You are exactly right." I want to say, if I'm exactly right, then please do it that way, but until now Japan has been getting by through deception. What is at the bottom of that thinking? To my mind, 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, at the time of large earthquakes or disasters, the SDF goes to the rescue. I asked, why don't you stop them then, saying the SDF must not go? Why don't you criticize them for going? 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 it wouldn't be a press conference if we were debating. It's strange (laughs).

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

They say that while the government had said the right of collective self-defense was a violation of Article 9 of the Constitution in a cabinet decision, reviewing that cabinet decision goes against constitutionalism. This is also strange. It is decided by the cabinet that the Self-Defense Forces are not an unconstitutional existence. Then, is it also not allowed to review that, and is the government's decision correct? It becomes that kind of talk. 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 not acceptable.

What is derived from this? It is that people of words, including scholars, should properly take responsibility for what they have said. I also think about how 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 becomes a critique of current politicians and ways of thinking. This is because rigorous scholarly results themselves provide us with a perspective to criticize the present.

However, in the 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 criticize the current situation with a strictly scholarly attitude to the end.

Looking at it that way, I hope "Common Sense in the Critique of Communism" and "Theory of Peace" will remain in a form that will be widely read in the future. 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 I must evaluate them as overlapping perfectly with the current situation.

Regarding the third point, the relationship with the Imperial Family, 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 the ideal form of the Emperor by reading Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" together. Why has the Imperial Household been maintained for this long? 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 political society," and continues, "Even though the government in the Diet may have 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 sense of calm and harmony." I believe this is the essence of the Emperor system. I believe it is the greatest reason it has endured for so long.

The issue of the Emperor's abdication is being discussed now, but I would like you to by all means read Fukuzawa Yukichi's "On the Imperial Household." The "On the Imperial Household" written by Mr. Koizumi himself describes this in a more easy-to-understand way.

Thank you for your attention today.

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