From the article of 'Petrel'
No.593 / August 11, 1996

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

The national standpoint and the class standpoint are just definite problem

Inhabitant's standpoint "As an Inhabitant" is petty bourgeois
The inhabitant vote in Maki town about the nuclear power plant problem



------

The opposite sect won the nuclear power plant inhabitant vote in Maki town of Niigata Pref. at a rate of 6:4.

As for the petty bourgeois and the liberal public opinion, it does not stop to go into raptures at this result or to emphasize the importance.

For their eyes, this is seen the epoch-making advancing of "the Democracy" and "the Inhabitant Participation," so the definite one step advancement that Japan faces a better direction.

For instance, the Communist Party is shouting, "they showed a splendid good sense", "Esteem the inhabitant's will." However, even the prospect of the solution is not actually found according to such inhabitant's votes as for an important, political problem is not solved at all.

The workers cannot hold any excessive fantasy in "the Inhabitant Vote" at this time.

------


It was forecast that the opposite sect would win in the inhabitant vote from the beginning.

Because, the nuclear power plant construction was not only even a little profit for the many of the inhabitants but also the "Danger" (Even how vague it would be) was forecast.

There might not be the persons who want to put the one that is only somehow uncanny and is not their profits near themselves.

It is said that the inhabitant in Maki town also is not only the persons engaged in the agriculture and the fishery but also, as a dormitory town of Niigata-city, the workers and the white-collars who work in the Niigata-city increase recently.

It might be clear that the nuclear power plant construction will not bring any profit immediately for them.

As for them, either "the Regional Promotion" by the nuclear power plant or the amends does not matter essentially.

It is symbolical that "the Visit tour with sightseeing" by the electric power company etc. is criticized as an act of purchase like and have received repulsion.

The petty bourgeois public opinion praises easily that the nuclear power plant development is denied and it is a will of "the People."

However, it is not directly the same to refuse the nuclear power plant as "the People" and to oppose to the construction of the nuclear power plant as "the Inhabitant."

And, the inhabitant in Maki town was also "the People" (Furthermore, it is human race's member) as was "the Inhabitant."

The inhabitant vote of Maki town is literal "an Inhabitant Vote" exactly and not any more.

Only the will as "the Inhabitant" was asked there and the will as "the People" might be another.

And after all, the foundation problem is the will as "the People" and furthermore as the class.

The will of "the Inhabitant" is only the restricted one with the definite limit ahead of the will of the people or the class.

The definite one is the will of the people and the will of the class.

Whether the entire people in Japan stops the nuclear power plant dependence or continues it, the will is the problems.

And, how is the national energy policy done if it is stopped to depend on the nuclear power energy?

It has already been made clear not to be able to depend on the water power.

Not only it has already come to the "Resource" limit, it is exposed that it causes the environment a big adverse effect in recent years.

How is the thermal power generation?

Though coal can be burnt, again here, this is exactly similar as to burn pollution, so the more important problem of air pollution is brought up.

To depend on oil is to depend on the nations in the Middle East and the international, huge monopoly under the leadership of the United States, so does it mean to be held of the throat neck of Japan by them? Can the racialists agree with this?

Though power generation with coal, oil, and the natural gas can be increased (the problem of the cost is let alone), we cannot say that problems are fewer than nuclear power plants if we think about the large amount of carbon dioxide that it exhausts.

Though human race might not ruin by the nuclear power plant, but we cannot declare that human race would not ruin by "the Earth Warming" near future.

There are also the roads to use the sun energy and the force of the wind, but as the energy source of the human race who increases to some billions, it should have only a secondary meaning.

The problem is whether Japan would abandon the nuclear power plants that supply about 30 percent of the electric power energy.

This is just the "People's" problem and is not the "Region's" problem.

Though it might relate to the inhabitant of the local government, it might not as "the Inhabitant," but above all as "the People."

This is a problem that should be solved in basic by the people (And for the workers, furthermore by the class) and it is not the problem of which the answer goes out by "the Inhabitant Vote" only of the Maki town (Only the standpoint as "the Inhabitant" is asked there and the standpoint as "the People" is not asked).

If we would deny the nuclear power plant, in what shape do we secure the national energy then? As for such definite problems, it is not essentially brought up to a problem in "the Inhabitant Vote" at this time.

The limit of such votes might be too clear.

It is the way of the lie of the petty bourgeois power (such as the civisist and SDP, CP, etc.) to extoll the declaration of the will as "the Inhabitant" by the inhabitant somehow exaggeratedly and to substitute the result of the inhabitant vote for "the Democracy" and for the people' wills.

The important thing (in the problem of the entire people or the nation especially) is the will as "the People" and as the class and it is not the will as "the Inhabitant."

What asked is whether we agree or not with the nuclear power plant as the people and again as the working class.

And if we opposite to the nuclear power plant as the people, what "Energy policy" do we institute?

If this is discussed as the "People's" problem, the working class also will appear clearly with their will and opinion.

However, we can do nothing but say about the will of "the Inhabitant," "the essential thing is not discussed and the evaluation is also not done in any way there, it is only the one with limit."

Petty bourgeois say that just the inhabitant's will is absolute and praise it as if the national standpoint is clarified by it. However, actually it is only the inhabitant's will as "the Inhabitant," and if we evaluate it from the class standpoint it is often the declarations of the mere petty bourgeois will (neither narrow-minded nor one sided is escaped).

It might be too clear for the workers that they are not only not able to support and beautify it unconditionally, but also able to oppose it clearly in some case.

Though the inhabitant in the Maki town had made the asking of the will as "the Inhabitant" absolute, this was essentially "Individualistic" and was indeed bourgeois.

That is, it is the standpoint that my own or my family and the region are just important and the others are no matter.

It is that I solve my own by myself, and as for the other things, the other people have to solve oneself.

Of course, the workers are different from the bourgeois and the petty bourgeois.

They aim to institute and to solve the problem in the national standpoint, so also in the class standpoint, and it is unrelated to the bourgeois individualist who "considers only oneself" (or, institutes all problems from the narrow standard like interests and the loss and gain of "oneself").

The petty bourgeois party and the civisists evaluate the meaning high that "Inhabitant" "pointed NO at the national policy," that is, fought against bourgeois nation.

They certainly fought against the large capital (the electric power company) and the bourgeois nation and won about the nuclear power plant problem.

However, it is possible to say first that this victory is not victory at all but neither the large capital nor the bourgeois nation is actually received any essential shock.

To say nothing of their national policy (if limit to the energy policy) and the class rule itself will be accomplished "without descending."

In that sense, "the Inhabitant" does not win at all.

Secondarily, this victory is in the essence the victory that does not lead to the following victory and is ended within the limit of regions and provides for oneself.

They only have to not be constructed in their region and have no matter if the nuclear power plant was constructed somewhere of the other.

For instance, they say "if it is safe, construct it near the large city," so they shout against the nuclear power plant but they do not intend to overthrow the nuclear power plant policy (even only the nuclear power plant policy) of the nation and the great monopoly.

Of course, the nationwide unity of the neighborhood protest movement is said only in opportunism and it might be a fantasy such as the neighborhood protest movement develops in the "nationwide" area, it produces the "Side" unity, and it replaces the monopolistic capital rule.

if we seriously think about the struggle against the monopolistic capital and the bourgeois nation, if we insist that it is just an ultimate solution of the problem and investigate the standpoint thoroughly, we cannot be consistent without instituting the viewpoint of the nationwide class struggle of the working class.

This standpoint stands essentially in the another dimension with the standpoint of petty bourgeois "Inhabitant" and the standpoint of civicism. However, the standpoint at which we aim is this, and just this standpoint leads to the ultimate overcoming the rule of the capital.