From the article of 'Petrel'
No.621 / March 16, 1997

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

Do not permit the revision of the special measures' law!

The Hashimoto regime dreaded "the state of an unlawful occupation"
Not to protect the private right but to counterattack to imperialism!



-------
The government tries to launch out into the law revision that compulsorily accommodates private land for the U.S.Army site in Okinawa. The purpose of it is not to become "the state of an unlawful occupation" as the Sobe communications place on October last year. The reason is not to be able to finish in negligent shape because, this time, there are 3,000 landowners different from last year, and the land reaches the 12 bases, moreover, it exists even at the runway center and the vicinity of the Kadena base and Hutenma base. Thus, if "the state of an unlawful occupation" would be widely born and the landowner would go out of right to "their" land, a big trouble to "the operation" of the U.S.Army and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty would occur, however the bourgeois nation must never permit and is not possible to permit these kind of things.
--------

The confusion would become cruel when the landowners would request their entry to the land as well as the time of the Sobe communications place, and it is likely impossible to make the U.S.Army consented, and the like.

The bourgeois nation making the private property absolute violates the private property for itself, thus, it exposes the self-contradictory existence and the failing existence. This might be similar to that the bourgeois just making democracy absolute is not able to stop the own denial of democracy. Such fundamental (or, "primordial") antinomy is not other than showing that this nation is a class nation and a nation that should be ruined.

The bourgeoisie always did not hesitate to attack and has attacked the private property when it became fetters for the national problem (the common problem of capital).
And, whenever such a problem cannot be borne for the hand of "democratic" bourgeoisie they used and were able to use the means such as the fascism.

The reason why the private property becomes fetters for the bourgeois at some time is that the bourgeois also needs the nation for own class rule, that the fantastic cooperation appears here and causes a contradiction and a confrontation between this and the private owning system, and is not for the bourgeoisie to deny the private owning system actually and to stand in the principle of the common owning system.

Only they express the limit and the restriction some private owning property even to defend the entire system of the private owning property, not any more.

The bourgeois is emphasizing at this time, "The meaning that the Security Treaty accomplishes in "the defense" of Japan is confirmed, the role and the "deterrent effect" of the U.S.Army staying in Japan are also clear, so it is necessary and natural to limit the private right to defend the national interest and to accomplish a national, important problem."

However, the workers have already confirmed "the National interest" so and so mentioned here is truly the profit and the rule of the bourgeoisie.

Though the workers basically agree with the limitation of the private right, however, we insist it is necessary to be done not for the bourgeois nation and the profit of the bourgeoisie but for the workers, for the construction of the society based on a true common system, that is, socialism.

The United States is irritating as an imperialist nation to be driven into "the state of an unlawful occupation." They get angry at Japanese people's "ungrateful," that is, for whom are they going out even Okinawa?

And, the Hashimoto regime and the Liberal-Democratic Party say that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty System is "the national interest of our country" and it is necessary to defend this "national interest" decisively, so the law limiting the private right is necessary.

However, they never attack the general private owning property, but only attack the private owning property with an opportunism or pretending their own profit as if a social, national profit. Their attack to the private owning property might be the acts of guilty or antinomy. The workers should thoroughly expose this.
On the other hand, the Shamin party (SDP) pretends to criticize for a moment as usual, however gives the unite with the Liberal-Democratic Party "top priority," and pretending for the union, does not try to "select" anything except sticking to the tail of the Liberal-Democratic Party.

Of course, there are many fellows in the Liberal-Democratic Party who think that even if the Shamin party would revolt to the Liberal-Democratic Party about this problem (Though the Liberal-Democratic Party is underestimating it is likely not to do and is likely not to be able to do) there is no needs to worry because there is the Democratic Party and the New Frontier Party. (They think that will be more fortunate.) I wonder whether the comic nature of the Shamin party politics will be exposed here.

And the Governor Ota who was a "hero" is now only mere Hamlet who is shaking and wandering between to maintain this cooperation (to return to the struggle against powers is exhausting) and to carry out the standpoint of the absolutely opposite to the base after changing to the cooperation route with the Hashimoto regime in autumn last year. Does Ota support the law revision at this time or can even pay only the lip service to oppose to it?

He says on one hand, "I am opposite to the move of the base in this prefecture" and "the Peaceful Okinawa in which the base is not located," and on the other hand, "I does not take the standpoint of all or nothing," such a standpoint is a contradicted and petty bourgeois one so it is likely to return in more and more losses of popular support.

Even such strange theory of sympathy comes to the front in the Hashimoto regime,"It is sorry and disadvantageous to drive Ota in dilemma. The government may become the bad character. If the government will become the bad character and revise the law, Ota will be saved."

He does not know the conscious workers will take "the Standpoint of all or nothing" and will accomplish this standpoint against capitalism and imperialism.

On the other hand, the Communist Party attacks the government taking out such reasons as follows, defend the land of the prefecture inhabitants, the constitution also expresses "the esteem of 'the property right' of the people (the validity of the private property) and Article 31 "prohibits the misuse of the official power," so the revision of the special measures law is a violation of the constitution, and the like.

However, such criticism that the land deprivation by the government is a violation of the constitution, or that the bourgeois nation does not esteem the private property might be nonsense powerless. This nation is fighting essentially for the private property and it is necessary to expose just this.

Moreover, the landowners who are offering land to the base exist as many as 30,000 persons and they are acquiring huge rental by the right of private owning in return for the land offer. I wonder whether the Communist Party will justify such right.

Kazuo Shii is insisting foolishly, "It is important to unite in the point of losing the marine corps of the U.S.Army, the marine corps does not exist for the Japanese defense, it is a force that makes a raid every where in the world when the dispute occurs," (The Asahi News paper interview on March 11) and he holds the nonsense fantasy that we can lose the U.S.Army base in Okinawa by saying so.

The marine corps is not stationed only for "the Japanese defense" certainly.
However, the necessity to station in Okinawa is not lost.

Because, the marine corps is necessary to glare upon all over the world, especially on Asia (North Korea etc.) and Russia and the like, as the military power of imperialism. And, the large capitals of Japan also want for themselves the Okinawa stationing of the marine corps for the maintenance of the world imperialist order of the capitals.

In this situation, what a foolish conception to think that we can win the marine corps's withdrawal by the excuse "It is not one for the Japanese defense" is?

Moreover, the bourgeoisie does not say that even if it is not directly the one for the Japanese defense, but to keep "the order" of the Korean peninsula is also for "the Defense of Japan" after all? It might be a quite nonsense fantasy of "too sweet" if think it is possible to make the marine corps withdrawn by taking out "the Japanese defense."

Before the fantasy, it is wrong and reactionary fundamentally to push such a nationalistic standpoint in itself.

Of course the workers will decisively oppose to the attack to the privately owning property by the bourgeois nation at this time, because it is not the true attack to the privately owning property, nor the attack for the true common system, but is carried out for the rule of the bourgeoisie and for profit of it, it is the one to plot maintaining the imperialism order in cooperation with the U.S.Army and even the reinforcement in addition.

This fight is a part of the fight of the workers who oppose the imperialist rule, and it is necessary to fight out as these kinds of things.

However, the workers should emphasize the side of the fight opposing to the imperialist rule in this fight, and does not, or should not insist in any meaning to protect the privately owning property and to reinforce the system.

Though there are some difficult problems here, however the conscious workers are not the amateur of class struggle perplexing, embarrassing, or retreating to such difficult problems already.