Why Do We Support The Obtaining of “Nationality”
The Rapprochement and “Assimilation” of Korean Resident Workers and Japanese Workers is the Correct Policy

(From 'Henkaku' No.29 Dec. 1984)

Written by Hiroyoshi Hayashi
Translated by Roy West

CONTENTS

Introduction
1. The Essence of the Problem-Its Particular Difficulty
2. What is the meaning of obtaining “nationality”?
3. Korean Residents and the “State”
4. The Criticism of Empty “Assimilation-ism”
5. Some Experiences From History

Introduction

The issue of the tens of thousands of Korean residents in Japan (hereafter Korean Residents) is once again drawing a great deal of attention. This is clear by the arrival in Japan of South Korean leader General Chun Doo Hwan, and the issue of fingerprinting of foreign residents, etc. On one hand there are the views of liberals, nationalists, and radicals, and on the other hand is the position of revolutionary socialists represented by the resolution of the Third Congress of the Socialists Workers Party of Japan. At this congress we advocated the rapprochement and “assimilation” of Japanese and Korean resident proletariat (and the correctness and necessity of the obtainment of “nationality” from a class standpoint), and it is clear that this is perfectly correct from the basis of the standpoint of the socialism and internationalism of the working class. This article intends to defend this position.

1. The Essence of the Problem-Its Particular Difficulty

The essence of the problem is the following-How can the rapprochement and unity of the working class in Japan and the tens of thousands of Korean resident workers, and their common struggles, be deepened, strengthened and developed?

Or phrased in a different way-How can the class struggles of tens of thousands of Korean resident workers against Japanese monopoly capital and its government be organized, and connected with the class struggles of the Japanese workers; and how can Korean resident workers, standing on a socialist and internationalist position (not a nationalist one!), participate and rally together with the struggles of the Socialist Workers Party of Japan?

In the case of Korean workers who have obtained Japanese nationality the problem is not that difficult or complicated. In this case, instead of the principle of nation or race, there can be the smooth acceptance of the principle of uniting with the single workers party. In this case the problem of a proletariat organization consisting of only Korean resident workers would probably not arise at all.

How, then, about the case of Korean resident workers in Japan? Can the principle of unity also be directly applied in this case? Or should a slightly different principle be applied?

We believe that even in the case of foreign residents of Japan the principle of uniting with a single workers party is the correct one.

Why?

This is first of all because the Korean resident workers in Japan are exploited and ruled by Japanese monopoly capital, and are essentially in the same position as the Japanese working class as a whole. Secondly, this is because we do not accept the formation of an independent “nation” of Korean residents of Japan. Thirdly, we think that it is incorrect, unrealistic and unnecessary to say that Korean resident workers in Japan have no place in a political party of Japanese workers or that they should have their own separate workers party.

The first and second propositions needless to say, and the third as well, should be perfectly evident if one stands on a socialist and workers’ internationalist position, rather than a nationalistic one. There are a number of independent organizations and groups of Korean residents in Japan, but all of them are nationalistic, not class-based. These “national” organizations have already become powerless and are in the process of dissolution. Doesn’t the fact that “national” organizations are rotten and dissolving, and class-based organizations do not exist, show that class-based organizations can only exist as a single workers party (participation in this party)?

2. What is the meaning of obtaining “nationality”?

We have mentioned the need for a class-based organization among Korean residents and how this is only realistic as a single workers party, but the question is how they can realize this as Korean residents of Japan.

On this point we confirm the significance of the obtaining of Japanese nationality by Korean Residents, and state that we see no reason to prevent this.

The reason we support the obtaining of Japanese nationality by Korean residents is our fundamental belief and faith that the development of the assimilation and solidarity between Japanese and Korean workers is progressive. Of course, even without becoming Japanese citizens, we would consistently seek to deepen proletariat solidarity. However, if it were possible for Korean residents to obtain Japanese citizenship, what reason would exist for not doing so? What would be the inconvenience of living as Korean-Japanese. If this would be an advantage for the alliance and combined struggles of Korean and Japanese workers, it is clear that we must support this.

Those who oppose this either absolutize the “Korean race” or don’t understand proletarian internationalism, i.e. nationalist philistines. They are reactionary because they cling to a standpoint, which was progressive until 1945, and turn back to past sentiments instead of the looking to the future direction of history.

Moreover, and this point is often misunderstood, obtaining Japanese citizenship is totally different from the prewar “imperial subjects”. Postwar Japan is a bourgeois democracy, and “Imperial Japan” no longer exists. It is said (by shallow radicals and nationalists) that obtaining citizenship is the same as submission to the prewar “imperial subject” policy, but it is completely formalistic to disregard the change of historical periods and conditions. The question facing Korean residents of Japan today is not one of a struggle against the rule of capital in Korea.

Since Korean residents in Japan are in the position of fighting against the exploitation and rule of capital in Japan, it is natural to obtain citizenship, and one cannot oppose this (or say that it would be mistaken or a disadvantage). This is because Korean residents are being oppressed and exploited by Japanese capital, not Korean capital. This is the basis of our position.

Already an increasingly large segment of Korean residents in Japan are under the rule of Japanese capital and are becoming wageworkers. Their enemy (a class enemy not a national one) is Japanese monopoly capital, the relationship between them and Japanese capital is essentially a relationship between capital and wage labor, not a relationship between a ruling and an oppressed nation.

Therefore, the obtaining of citizenship merely has the meaning of confirming this reality.

Narrow-minded nationalists certainly cannot (or do not want to) recognize this, but the obtaining of Japanese citizenship by Korean residents is a necessity, and this will become increasingly so. This is because Korean residents of Japan are basically “becoming Japanese”, so to speak.

Of course, we would firmly oppose any effort on the part of the state, no matter how mild, to make citizenship, compulsory. At the same time we would criticize and oppose the establishment by the Japanese state of any impediment or obstacle to the obtaining of Japanese citizenship. Our position is that this is the decision of the Korean residents of Japan, and their complete free will and autonomy must be maintained.

We emphasize that the nationalist standpoint (the standpoint of a dividing the Japanese and Koreans!) is not progressive or beneficial at all, and has already become reactionary. We say that the Korean resident workers of Japan, on the basis of an international and class viewpoint must make their own decision.

3. Korean Residents and the “State”

Korean Residents of Japan are certainly not an oppressed race, but only in the position of foreigners (essentially people who have lost their homeland). In European countries there is the example of Jews, who for the most part are citizens of a country while at the same time Jewish, and a discriminated race (or in the case of the United States and other countries already no longer a nation through assimilation). People do not want to look squarely at the objective fact that Japanese residents of Japan are simply in the position of foreigners. There is no reason that they should not become “citizens”. Indeed, the position that they should not accept the rights of the “citizen” is the one that must be criticized.

Being considered foreigners although Japanese and Japanese although foreigners-this is the ambiguous and extremely weak position that tens of thousands of Korean residents in Japan find themselves.

For the bourgeois state they are foreigners, that is not Japanese. The bourgeois state only knows this sort of “logic”.

On the other hand, liberal intellectuals demand of the bourgeois state to not discriminate against them even if they are not Japanese.

Thus, these same liberals uphold and welcome the nationalism of Korean residents of Japan, thereby attempting to place a partition or fix a modern “gate” between Japanese and Korean workers. Doesn’t this expose their own self-contradiction? Just like their handling of other problems, they behave like hypocrites and con artists!

We of course support complete equal rights for Koreans, but we stress that it is an impotent and empty demand to ask that the bourgeois state act as if it were not a state. For the bourgeois state to grant absolutely equal rights for Korean residents (and foreigners in general) it would have to cease to be a bourgeois state.

Instead of the fantasies and hypocrisy of “humanists” who demand “humanity” of the bourgeois state, the working class must rather fight to overcome this state, and replace it with the rule of the proletariat.

Here we must make it clear that by this we do not mean that we are defending the “rights of the sovereign state” insisted on by the bourgeoisie (It is natural that the Japanese state, as a “sovereign state”, which can forcefully expel “foreigners” who don’t serve its interests, is unable to give up such rights.)

When we speak of the inevitability of the bourgeois state, there are those (radicals and honey-tongued liberals) who insist that we are defending “rights that cannot be given” to the bourgeois state, but there is a difference between recognizing the essential nature of a class state, and defending it. For instance, the recognition of the historical inevitability of capitalism does not in any way prevent the consistent struggle against capitalism (indeed this recognition itself is the first precondition for a correct struggle).

In fact, the narrow radicals and nationalists are the ones (today the two are often the same person) who forget (or escape from) the reality of the existence of a class state, and evade the crucial tasks by playing around with daydreams and dogmas. They get wrapped up in secondary problems-and hide their pettiness with phrasemongering, while paying no serious attention to the most essential and important question-i.e. overcoming the rule of capital!

The existence of the class state is a fact, and we cannot escape from this reality. Clearly, it is completely useless to imagine or demand that the class state cease to be class state-i.e., to suppose that this state could be generous, philanthropic and would not resort to oppression or “forced expulsions” even if the “safety” and “order” of the rule of the bourgeoisie were broken.

Nevertheless, the “struggles” of the radicals and so-called liberals are basically founded upon such pathetic demands.

4. The Criticism of Empty “Assimilation-ism”

There are those who frighten the Japanese and Korean resident workers with the cry of “assimilation!” But why is the assimilation of Japanese and Koreans considered reactionary?

Here, of course, we are not advocating nationalistic assimilation (not to mention “collectivist” assimilation), but rather the class “assimilation” of the workers. Those who raise the specter of “assimilation-ism” are unable to understand that Korean residents and other “citizens” in Japan are divided by class, and that the “assimilation” we are striving for is proletariat assimilation which is unconditionally progressive and necessary, as well as in perfect agreement with the spirit of proletariat internationalism. Why are they opposed to the unity and assimilation of both “nations”? Isn’t this because they are narrow-minded petty bourgeois nationalists?

It is clear that the progressive role of Korean nationalism already came to an end in 1945, and became the slogan of the Korean bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, and that the slogan of the Korean workers must be socialism and internationalism. We have spoken of this principle since the Sixties when radicals were calling for an “independent Korean nation”.

However, since Korea remains split between north and south, Korean nationalism still seems to have some progressive quality, and has had a strong hold on the working class in Korea. This has also clearly influenced Korean residents in Japan.

Still, isn’t it perfectly clear that Korean nationalism is the slogan of the Korean bourgeoisie, and is already reactionary? Its main advocates are the reactionary military government represented by Kim and big capital in South Korea.

Some argue that nationalistic slogans are still progressive today in terms of the uniting of North and South Korean into a strong, single Korean state.

However, the emergence of a united Korean state along the lines of the North Korean model, this would only like be the reactionary state of the Kim Il Sung which would probably immediately “alarm” Japan and other countries. If the state would be along the lines of the South Korean model this would be the reactionary state of the General Chun Doo Hwan variety which would “alarm” regions of Sibera and Eastern China. In this way, the formation of a single Korean nation-state is nothing but the slogan of the reactionary bourgeoisie (in the south) who are wishing for a strong state in this sense, and its “progressiveness” is a sham.

But there are some people who deceive themselves and others with the empty idea of “democratic” unity between north and south. However, even if a democratic united Korean state were to appear, what would this “democratic” state be? Would this be “democratic” in the Chinese sense of a “democratic” state, or in the Japanese sense? In either case this would essentially not change the fact that this would be a bourgeois state.

In short, whether a dictatorship or a democratic state, the appearance of a united Korean state would not fundamentally alter the current situation of the north and south Korean states, nor its position within international politics. This would only mean that the united state would carry out one of the two roles above. This is the very reason that we are also opposed to the nationalistic slogans for north-south unity, and instead advance a program of solidarity and rapprochement of the working class in both countries, and proletariat revolution. Korean nationalism is reactionary in every sense, and prevents the unity and rapprochement between workers in North and South Korea as well as between Japanese and Korean workers. Already a long time ago, this has turned into something reactionary that draws a line between nations and isolates Korean workers. Moreover, the recent development of relations and exchange between Japan and Korea fundamentally elucidates this truth, and in this sense has great historical significance.

Don’t Korean nationalists who criticize “assimilation” end up, despite their best intentions, helping Japanese reactionaries-Japanese ultra-nationalists-who attempt to propagate hostile feelings and sow the seeds of mutual prejudice between Japanese and Koreans?

To avoid any misunderstanding, we should say again that in speaking of proletarian “assimilation” this counts out any forced or violent means, which could not occur since the Japanese working class does not have possess such means in the first place. Proletariat “assimilation” would mean that Korean residents in Japan would inherit the democratic and revolutionary tradition of the Koreans, and in this sense would be perfectly compatible with the inheriting of Korean culture.

5. Some Experiences From History

At the 1903 Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party Lenin opposed the proposal for a separate Jewish organization (Bund) of the Social Democratic Party, and fought for a single nation-wide revolutionary party.

The difference between this case and that of Korean residents in Japan is that Jews had Russian “citizenship”-a (member) “discriminated” minority nation within the Russian state-whereas the Korean residents do not have “citizenship”.

Of course, in principle, there is no reason preventing Korean residents in Japan from joining, in their current state, the workers party in Japan (SWP-Japan), and participating in revolutionary struggles. This is because we are principally opposed to any class state, and are fighting to overthrow it. We don’t accept the bourgeois state, and therefore don’t believe that it is necessary to be a member of the Japanese bourgeois state in order to fight against this state.

Hence, when we say that there is significance for Korean residents to obtain Japanese citizenship this is merely from the perspective of a realistic advantage, a “convenience”, it is not a question of principles. Put in terms of principles, this is merely in agreement with the “principle” that the obtaining of citizenship will facilitate the alliance or “assimilation” of Japanese and Korean workers. Our position is an internationist one, not a nationalist one. We don’t recognize any essential or fundamentally important distinction between Japanese and Koreans, just as we don’t recognize any essential distinction between people from Nagano, Niigata or Shizuoka prefectures.

Our aspiration is led by the fact that within the class struggles of workers in Japan aiming for socialism, the percentage of Korean-Japanese will no doubt be much higher than their overall percentage of the population.

In the past, the relative percentage of oppressed Jews the historic struggles of the Russian Social Democratic Party was extremely high. Starting with Trotsky, Kamenov, and Lunacharsky, many of the greatest socialists were of Jewish origin (this is also of course the case for German Marxists!). They were opposed to the “independent” organization of Jewish workers called the Bund, and struggled for a single Russian Social Democratic Party from a standpoint of socialism and internationalism.

Our dream is that the ranks of Korean residents of Japanese or Korean-Japanese workers will fight for a single workers party, and fight together through the struggles of this party. This is still not realistic yet, but will be so in the future.