From the article of 'Petrel'
No.654 / November 16, 1997

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

The Hashimoto's "administrative reformation" line having been deadlocked.

They confuse about the administrative reformation or the business measures.
The Communist Party only helps the decadent line.


The voice to request the correction of the Hashimoto's "administrative reformation line" is rising. Such a voice is raised most strongly in the Liberal-Democratic Party, the government party of the Hashimoto regime. To say sarcastic or farce. However, the same voice is given of course in the opposition party, in the "true" opposition party crying for the "confrontation" with the Liberal-Democratic Party. Of course, the insistence of the Communist Party is not entirely the same as that of the Liberal-Democratic Party and might be the variety or the sub-seed. (However, it results in the voice of the reactionary member of the assembly of the Liberal-Democratic Party.) The Communist Party as the "true" opposition party will not be able to hoist the same insistence as the Liberal-Democratic Party. However, we, the workers declare that the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Communist Party only represent and express the capitalistic corruption at the present age in somewhat different shape respectively, and denounce the nonsense of both.

The voice of the "policy conversion" is rising.

Hashimoto has abandoned neither "the financial rebuild" nor the administrative reformation line yet, and it is not possible to abandon it so easily, because abandoning it might become to kill the Hashimoto regime. He is likely not to be able to stay at president position by abandoning the administrative reformation line even if how impudent Hashimoto is.

Just so, he cannot do nothing but to express the fast holding of the financial rebuild line, to explain the "endurance" to himself and to "the people," and to insist there will again be the brilliant age over it. However, such a persuasion cannot satisfy the corrupted and reactionary members of the assembly of the Liberal-Democratic Party more and more.
On November 7, Humio Saito of the Liberal-Democratic Party demanded the policy conversion in loud voice at the plenary session of the House of the Representatives.

"It is necessary to take the financial mobilization and to advance the structural reformation by the gross domestic production improvement temporarily, isn't it? It must be also important to leave the enhanced social capital for the future life though it is important not to leave the debt for the child and the grandchild either. Is it a problem only to control the public works?"

Such a representative question made a strange contrast with the ask of the member of the assembly of the Democratic Party, that is, there is absurd one even in the large-scale public business, it is necessary to freeze and stop it as the case may be. So I wondered which was the Hashimoto's government party.

The expectation theory to the public business whirls in the Liberal-Democratic Party that has to support the Hashimoto's administrative reformation with neglecting the administrative reformation in the fair wind of the deepening recession. Shizuka Kamei insists, "It was the story that the business could reverse for oneself, isn't it? It is necessary to show the recipe. The finance mobilization does not contradict with the financial structural reformation." Yohei kono also spoke, "Is it go well even if we bind the hands and feet of business measures by fixing the frame of the financial structure reformation. The problem of Sanyo Securities also happened."

The Communist Party also fallen in with the Liberal-Democratic Party.

The Communist Party also tuned to the Liberal-Democratic Party and started the large chorus of "The consumption expands for the business recovery." The distinction and unlike of the Communist Party from the Liberal-Democratic Party is only that, while the Liberal-Democratic Party emphasizes "the public business" it takes out "the individual consumption," while the Liberal-Democratic Party says that the issue of the national debt will not leave either as funds it says to reduce such as the military expense.

There is essentially no difference between both in the point of standing on the bourgeois and revisionist standpoints of the twentieth centuries, that is, the Keynesian standpoints.

Of course, Keynesian is far more flexible and clever in the point of not having dogmatically insisted it is good in case of the public business and is bad in case of the tax reduction or the opposite as the business promotion plan by the financial expansion than his succession person and followers.

The Communist Party is shouting now that "Reduce 7,000 billions yen for the individual consumption expansion," provide the business recovery by doing so (As the result, business must recover). For instance, the 'Editorial' of "The Red Flag" on November 8 demanded to the Hashimoto regime as follows, "Convert promptly into the direction to achieve the expansion of the domestic demand centering on the individual consumption."

"Everyone including the inside and outside the country has been pointing out in unison that the ringleader of the serious business retreat was in the load increase of 9,000 billions yen in total by the consumption tax increase, the abolition of the special tax reduction, and the medical insurance deterioration, which Hashimoto Cabinet had faced out the opposite of the public opinion and had forced. The tax reduction demand of 7,000 billions yen by the Japanese Communist Party is to answer the urgent, keen problem of expansion of the ice-cold individual consumption by achieving the tax reduction of 5,000 billions yen by returning the consumption tax rate to 3% before tax increase, and by executing the income tax reduction of 2,000 billions yen scale."

It can exactly be said as "betrayed oneself" that the Communist Party praises the bourgeois conventional views of the cause of the present recession "being in the consumption shortage" and, with following to it, boasts that all people are advocating this opinion. Who can exist with not talking about the bourgeois conventional views of the fashion? Just the fact that it is being exactly talked about by many people exposes the bourgeois and conventional essence of this opinion too much.

We do not deeply deal with the Malthusian, Keynesian conventional views (Shismondian and Narodnikist conventional views) as the cause of the recession "being in the consumption shortage" here. Though Tetuzo Huwa conceal that in spite of knowing, because he capitalizes on the "learned" (It is happy not to be mere "pedantry.") not having unknown thing about Marxism, Marx and Lenin thoroughly criticized and exposed such conventional idea.

Of course, because the capitalistic production is the society based on exploitation from the worker, it might always be in "Consumption shortage" in this sense. However, on the other hand, they emphasized that the root of the capitalistic contradiction, therefore the fundamental cause of panic is also not in the mere consumption shortage but in the capitalistic production relation itself. (Of course, it involves the "consumption limitation" as an inevitable opportunity, too.) Actually, just the moment of the boom that the consumption of the general public becomes the maximum prepares the panic and leads to the explosion as Marx also says. The limit of "the consumption shortage theory" might be clear from this.

The reactionary meaning of such opinion might be to obscure and to shelve virtually the meaning of excessive production panic caused from the root of the contradiction of capitalistic production, and to talk briskly as if the purpose of the fight of the workers is not the revolution of the production relations but in the stunted, wrong direction of improvement, and to avert, distort, weaken the struggle of the workers.

The policy of the Communist Party is in self contradicts.

The stunted standpoint of "consumption expansion" of the Communist Party, the standpoint to overcome the recession by the expansion of consumption exposes practically the contradiction and confusion everywhere, too.

For instance, though the Communist Party says the public business is powerless but the consumption expansion is effective to overcome the recession, why can they say such a thing?
Why cannot they say that if the individual consumption is effective the public business is also effective (In some cases, more than the individual consumption)?

In this respect, the Keynesian was simpler and more realistic. Though he also approved the meaning of the expansion of public business, it was not for him to have admitted the meaning of the consumption expansion in other shape at all. The Japanese Communist Party persists in the ideal and dogmatic standpoint more than the Keynesian. (Where might "be the realistic" party?)

Moreover, though the Keynesian as a reactionary bourgeois approves that the military expansion also contributes to the consumption expansion, that is, to the business recovery, on the other hand, the Japanese Communist Party roars for the reduction of the military expense for the funds of the individual consumption expansion. They are inconsiderate to their failure and contradict again here.

Does not the Communist Party know the military expense is also "Consumption?" It is certainly a waste of the bourgeois nation (Of course, it is not a mere waste but has the class meaning enough) and "consumption" though is not "Individual consumption." So it is sure to support the business below according to the reason of the Communist Party. If so, cutting down it would invite the business deterioration by the amount, would not it? The confused article like the policy that might deprave business in one side and for the business recovery in the other side will be clear more nonsense than the Hashimoto's policy.

Moreover, the Communist Party is insisting that the funds of about 2,000 billions yen are possible to be provided by the substitution of the national debt in low interest, and decreasing the interest cost of the nation. Though we do not ask why the reduction of the interest cost and not the abandonment of all national debts (debt of the nation) in the present, can the Communist Party easily say that they will decrease the interest rate of the national debt?

The Finance Processing Diversification has already had 100 trillions yen of the national debt balances, and the Finance Processing Diversification has been paying the postal savings the "high" interest rate reaching even 3% by the interest earned hear.

The Communist Party is emphasizing that we should not reduce the interest rate of the postal savings because it is "the finance of people." If so, can they propose like such one as to reduce the interest rate of national debt of even 100 trillions yen being hold by the Finance Processing Diversification? If they reduce the interest rate of the national debt that the Finance Processing Diversification has, it might be helpless if they do not reduce the deposit interest rate of the postal savings. Would they never tell to match by the assistance from national finance, would they? (It is the tax of the people even if it is the national finance!) The insistence of the Communist Party is incoherent, absurd, negligent of setting up there, and here does not stand.

The another bourgeois standpoint

However, there exists an another bourgeois standpoint approaching the standpoint of the Communist Party in the business promotion plan and differing in the funds. It is the standpoint of Huruhata and the Japanese Economic Newspaper discussed the other day.

They emphasize that recovering "the individual consumption" grips the key to the business recovery because the cause that present business became depressed are where such as the consumption tax rate improvement depressed the individual consumption. It is exactly the same as the opinion of the Communist Party and it might be extremely characteristic that the Communist Party is corresponding to the reactionary named Huruhata and the standpoint of the Japanese Economic Newspaper.

However, Huruhata and the like are different from the Communist Party by one point how to procure the funds of such as tax reductions.

The Communist Party falls in the self-contradiction by requesting the funds to the other consumption reductions, and falls to a more and more powerless, meaningless standpoint as a business measures; They are further more consistent from beginning to end in the respect of business measures, they bawl for the issue of national debt, the deficit-covering bond in loud voice.

They say that it is necessary to issue the deficit-covering bond even to do the consumption tax reduction; Just the standpoint of the Hashimoto regime of not issuing the deficit-covering bond makes the consumption tax reduction impossible, and therefore makes the business recovery difficult. It is the complaint of these misters of bourgeois if to admit the importance of the consumption tax reduction should not dread the issue of the deficit-covering bond.

They even made a proud gesture that just this road exactly enables the finance rebuild. That is, they scatter the foolish "super-optimism" that if we would bring the business recovery by such an only and correct way the natural increase of the tax would expand and the financial improvement would be achieved easily as the result.

Huruhata and the like insist that the way that made light (even hostile) of the deficit-covering bond and valued only the construction national debt brought the one-sided increase of the public business expense, and just it is the true cause of the financial failure. The Japanese Economic Newspaper asks itself, "Though if we demand the funds of the welfare expense to the national debt it becomes the deficit-covering bond, we wonder whether to give priority the public business to the welfare therefore?"

The insistence of the Communist Party is not the same such as the insistence of Huruhata, but approaches there close and has the same, social meaning with it. They both shout the expansion of individual consumption and insist that there is the key to the business recovery just there.

The worker's party and the petty bourgeois party.

The worker's party does not and should not submit any policy "for business recovery." The Communist Party has already been exposing an own reformist and ugly opportunism in this starting point.

They courtly toward bourgeois as "The business will improve if you will adopt the so and so policy. It is not the policy only for the workers." And toward worker, they sprinkle the sugary sugar around the vulgar and reactionary economism and reformism as "The consumption expansion is not only for the workers but the policy of the national meaning. We must demand stately."

Of course, the workers will fight against the "additional" and big exploitation (We say "additional" because it is not the immediate exploitation at "the site of production" but the extra exploitation through the finance and the circulation.) of the bourgeois nation, that is the reinforcement of such as the consumption tax or the income tax.

However, we will never permit to decorate the opposite by the false reason such as benefiting the business recovery or important for that, and to expand the fantasy. It is directly to serve to the bourgeoisie and to betray the worker. The opposite to an individual policy of the bourgeois must be tied to the standpoint of the workers who oppose the entire rule of the capital, and only after it becomes so, the meaning of the individual fight is confirmed.

The age when the contradiction of capitalism intensifies and the difficulty is imputed to the workers is coming. The worker should counterattack such an attack decisively and fight uniting this fight with the fight overthrowing the rule of the capital itself. There is the true fighting road of the workers only there.