From the article of 'Petrel'
No.629 / May 18, 1997
Please
send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.
The Nonsense of Liberalism's Criticism
A Diet Member's Reactive Behavior on Senkaku Islands "Hurt Our Country's Cause"?
Liberalism's opinion is full of criticism for the actions of Diet member Mr. Nishimura of the Neoprogressive Party. But would their criticism also be categorized as reactionary (as well as absurd)? We are speaking about the tone of argumentation typified in newspapers like "the Asahi Shimbun." That "great" newpaper has criticized the demonstrations of Nishimura on the Senkaku Islands saying "He hurt our country's cause." The newspaper has put together a clever criticism trying to sound intelligent describing Nishimura's actions as "If the legal possession of the Senkaku Islands were around a fire, he just about poured gasoline into it," and saying that he has aggravated the confrontation we have with China and Taiwan and he has increased the distance to a resolution to the archipelago dispute. Nishimura's actions were unprofitable to Japan according to the high and mighty paper. The deception and incompleteness of the view point of the liberals is plain here and their superficiality and silliness is especially evident. In their half informed criticism they are battling to stop racists, warmongers, and imperialists but instead of curbing their advance these groups are spured on to higher haughtiness and greater presumptuousness so that in the final analysis liberals serve against themselves and for reactionism. The aforedescribed liberal opinion emphasizes the Senkaku Islands as "territory traditionally Japanese" and while they continue to defend the reactionary view point they get hung up on any active reactionary element in the reactionary movement. Rather than saying Nishimura "went to extremes" why don't the liberals say "he could have acted with more discretion?"
The claims of an editorial in Asahi Shimbun are stated.
"It goes without saying that the uninhabited islands floating in the East China Sea are according to international law the territory of Japan under the legal authority of Japan." If that is the case and the Senkaku Islands are a Japanese territory and if it is recognized under international law, then landing a boat there, claiming it as a possession, raising our flag there, and building a lighthouse are "natural actions" and therefore, shouldn't any kind of criticism be pointless? Rightwingers, reactionaries, and nationalists say that while the government and liberals stress the Senkaku Islands as a territory of Japan, they take no decisive attitude or steps and wastefully "pile up debates" with China and Taiwan. They make heated denunciations against concessions that have come down and declare that that kind of action is what "hurts our country's cause" and invites loss to the Japanese state. If they say the Senkaku Islands are Japanese territory, then "defending" the islands should be a natural course, a God-given duty of the Japanese people and their nation, and a right. We think that the Japanese government itself which has been in neglect of these powers is throwing away "our country's prosperity" and giving in to betraying our people's prosperity. All the people who knew the prewar government can probably easily remember how it used to be said about that territory and the rights thereof that they were "bought by the blood of Japanese men from Meiji times (c. 1868)." Everyone used to say this same thing.
Will any such similar fuss be raised about matters in Korea and Taiwan, "the Liaotung Peninsula" or "Manchuria?" And amid all the previously mentioned shouts and screams, [it seems to become a fact] that an imperialistic invasion by Japan has steadily widened. Therefore, liberals are totally wrong if they think that they can fight with Nishimura, rightwingers, and imperialists in the name of rescuing "our country's cause." If one says "our country's cause," how come one cannot say "it is going too far when one shows an attitude of determination for a 'Japanese traditional' territory?" After making it a priority to cooperate and compromise with China in a political way, can one accomplish the possession of the Senkaku Islands as expected and provide securtiy for them? The Chinese government itself is a racist, nationalist, and fanatically bourgeoise government, no, it is already an imperialistic government (it seems to be getting more and more so), and with this in effect their government will probably never give up its claim that the Senkaku Islands are "traditional territroy" of China. On the contrary, this nation will intensify its assertion more and more...(If it simply gave up the Senkaku Islands, it might hurt "the prosperity of China" and the current Chinese government would probably never continue.)
Bourgeoisies through out the world, consequently even many bourgeoise states, seek profit and rights around "the sphere of influence" and the marketplace and "territories." They compete to "take out the shrewdest fellow" and antagonize against every thing. In this world in which bourgeoises compete, there are both extremes of state "prosperity" and state "loss." This antagonism and competitive combat does not always appear plain on the surface during the times of capitalist prosperity and that situation may accompany a perfect harmony in the market, but it will usher in a small crisis period and then suddenly it will leap from the surfaces of various interrelated politico-economies of the world and then the dominant factors of the world system will be transformed. Such an era of time will indeed be an era of imperialist rampant domination and wars. The reason that liberalism's opinion has been able to put on a big pompuous show in criticizing Nishimura's reaction as "he hurt our country's cause" is that it is ignorant of the antagonism and contradictions of a society that controls capital and it has no understanding of the natures of both aggression and reactionism led by bourgeoise control. Liberals are basically ignorant dreamers. In a world that controls the flow of capital if one decides to think that saving the "country's cause" can be accomplished by fighting the actions of Nishimura and by being able to put down their "foolish acts," that is pure and utter nonsense. And what's worse is that as they emphasize their own brand of "national prosperity" and cry boo-hoo about the territorial rights of the Senkaku Islands, they repeatedly disclose a reactionary position similar to Nishimura, except they only criticize Nishimura's reactions.
Just before WWII, the very deception and the stupid talk of those in the liberal school of thought plus their powerlessness and their mismatch of word and deed lead to a scathing criticism of "weakness" and "betrayal," and the development and concentration of rightwing-imperialism had just one chance.
To oppose Nishimura's actions, one should stand on the international view of laborers, namely that "the right" of the territorial possession of the Senkaku Islands is simply a bourgeoise right and it must be clear that workers will never recognize any such "right." Workers emphasize that the general notion of "territory" is an idea that appears along with the bourgeoise stage in human history,and socialist workers who oppose and resist capital will not be captivated by such a concept. This nonsensical society of capital which declares the private ownership of all plots of land and means of reproduction claims each "territory" as a small plot of land floating between one nation and another, yet it will argue over the ownership of such lands.
Just as the Japanese government can claim territorial possession of the Senkaku Islands so can the Chinese government. In short, it's all a matter of interpretation. When one claims the possession of a territory and the ownership of specific plots of land on this planet, the crying over those "legal" rights is good if you leave things up to bourgeoisies. The working classes based on internationalism and socialism essentially reject the notion of "territory" and therefore will never make the claim for "the rights to territorial possession" of the Senkaku Islands, Takeshima Island or any where. Naturally, our ridiculing the view regarding Japan's "right to territorial ownership" of the Senkaku chain does not make the islands a "territory" of China or Korea. On the contrary, we completely reject and refute the very notion of "territory." Truly the one and only correct position is a marxist-international position. This is not just about trying to expose the foolish acts of the Japanese government or to expose the provocations of reactionary types, it is to make it possible to have proletariats around the world fight together for labor against bourgeoisies around the world.