From the article of 'Petrel'
No.686 / July 19, 1998

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

From the overthrow of Hashimoto to the overthrow of the Liberal-Democratic Party regime

The defeat of the Liberal-Democratic Party is the defeat of all the existing political party.
The insistence of opposition party does not exceed an awkward imitation of the Liberal-Democratic Party.



----------
The election of the House of Councilors in 1998 ended in the defeat of the Liberal-Democratic Party and the victory of the Democratic Party and the Communist Party. The Hashimoto regime collapsed easily, and the fantasy that the Liberal-Democratic Party is strong has collapsed away like a great edifice collapsing to the ground. The defeat of the Hashimoto regime, therefore also the retirement of it was inevitable. Because, the powers of big capital had no correct idea about the seriousness of the crisis of capitalism, therefore they had not understood how to correspond to it, too. The reason is that they were going this way and that in front of the recession and did not know how to do, and they could do nothing but to do allopathy and "chops and changes" from beginning to end, or they have taken a nap in the no-doing of coasting and praying for God's help as it is likely that the economy will pick up and every thing will advance well if time passes a little more. And, that the Hashimoto regime began to say suddenly "the permanent tax reduction" having denied till then at the final board of the election disclosed the truth that this regime has neither any belief, a definite view nor a view, and is only staggering being pushed by the situation in the daylight and defeated the Liberal-Democratic Party definitely.
----------

The meaning of the Hashimoto regime collapse.

The Liberal-Democratic Party regime collapsed once and was replaced by the opposition party's union regime five years ago. Of course, it might be able to be said that the collapse of this Liberal-Democratic Party powers is transitional and what started at this time is a real thing as long as it is the man like Liberal-Democratic Party who are more than the Liberal-Democratic Party named Ozawa to have gripped this hegemony.

We will dare to believe it.

However, does the union of the opposition party also become genuine in case of it? We dare to declare that the second regime of the opposition party union is farce and nonsense as well as that the second collapse of the Liberal-Democratic Party powers is farce.

Of course, it might be clear that the collapse beginning now is more serious and has bigger meaning than the collapse of the Liberal-Democratic Party powers five years ago. This might suggest the end of the period of steady capitalism and the comming of the uplift age of class struggle certainly. If so, the front of the conscious worker must be reinforced and prepared for the age concretely, too.

It is not the responsibility and the mistake of only the individual Hashimoto.

Hashimoto exposed his unbecoming shake and the do-nothing and retired.

However, might Hashimoto's shake and the miserable going this way and that really be a chance and his personal mistake?

Things do not go as such at all. It expresses the shake and the dismantlement of the entire present capital power, and it is the reflections of the shakes and the going this way and that of the entire bourgeoisie (petty bourgeoisie), and again of the all existing political party.

Of course, Hashimoto and the executive of the Liberal-Democratic Party responsible for the defeat of the Liberal-Democratic Party partly. Because, they thought this election thoroughly easy to deal with so that they prided themselves on the complete victory in the six by-election and puffed up with it.

How much they were conceited and took an optimistic view of the situation is simbolized in that, they were rolliced as they could reserve 69 seats, and they made 13 constituencies of plural candidates, which was 0 in the last election of the House of Councilors. (This strategy fails and it made the decline of the Liberal-Democratic Party more definite.)

How much this party was conceited and became arrogant, and did not understand their standpoints appeared clearly in the place where Shizuka Kamei talked openly while electing, "Politician's role is to work for rights" and plainly justified the rights politics of the current Liberal-Democratic Party.

In the meeting gathering builder in Tokyo, Yamazaki declared to take the public business for Tokyo and disclosed the essence of the dirty politics of the Liberal-Democratic Party.

However, the reason of the defeat of the Liberal-Democratic Party is not mere arrogance and becoming puffed-up of course.

The misgovernment of the Liberal-Democratic Party was discussed and critisized noisily during the election. They critisized the Liberal-Democratic Party as not to device any countermeasures and to take a clever-hannded and haphazard policy from beginning to end at the deepning of the recession, and it just progress the recession further, and it is going to lead the Japanese economy to dismantlement.

Certainly, Hashimoto looked passive for "contra cycle policy" and looked not to show interest in the policy brought a financial expansion.

However, the reason that he was unsystematic in this point was not only by his character but by that he was chained to the financial rebuild and the administrative reformation and was catched to the idea of the "new" liberal.

When Hashimoto expressed the financial rebuild and declared that it was just the starting point of the rebuild of Japanese economy last autumn, the opposite opiniopn aginst it was hardly heard in the bourgeoisie.

The opinion that it is necessary and important just to deny the Keynesian principle, to produce the "small" government, to be thourough in "self responsibility" without depending on the nation and the government, to execute free competition openly, and to accomplish the administrative reformation was even the "agreement" of not only bourgeoisie but also general society. This was also the powerful idea of the world bourgeoisie after 1980s. (To see the idea of Reagan and Sucher, thier route of reformation!)

After the time (We say it as 10 or 20 years unit after 1970s), the Liberal-Democratic Party has trembled and gone this way and that between the standpoint of keynesian principle and the standpoint of the "new" liberal. In the age of bubble, they shouted that bubble owed to the policy of Keynesian principle and could do nothing but depend on the policy of "new" liberalism -How old-fashioned it was!- such as the small government, the financial rebuild, deregulation, the accomplishment of the free competition, the thoroughness of self-responsibility, and the like.

And when the recession deepened, they went back to the keynesian strategy reversely at once this time and began to shout that they shloud execute the business stimulation policy even if the deficit-covering bond would go up, such as the financial rebuilding should be the next.

It is easy to say that Hashimoto has shaken due to the weakness of Hashimoto's will and the lack of belief. However, the whole of the bourgeoisie was so and it was not the one only of Hashimoto especially. The whole of them were shaken between going the way of keynesian principle or the "new" liberalism. Just therefore, Hashimoto made a "mess" of blurting out of the tax reduction denying up to then at th elast moment of the House of Councilors' election. Hashimoto's goof was never the chance but it came out from the whole politics of the bourgeoisie and therefore the Liberal-Democratic Party.

The Hashimoto's shake and his disgraceful going this way and that was a reflection of the shake of the entire bourgeoisie who lost confidence and it was also a reflection of the confusion and the shake of the jive-ass existing political party that was on the standpoint not much different from the Liberal-Democratic Party.

All the existing political party failed, too.

Therefore, the Hashimoto's failure was the failure of not only the failure of Hashimoto alone, of the Liberal-Democratic Party alone but also the failure of all (Including the Communist Party) the existing political parties.

Hashimoto suddenly changed the "Belief" till then and expressed "the parmanent tax reduction" at the last stage of the election, and disgusted electorate certainly.

However, all the existing political parties including the Communist Party have expressed the tax reduction, so if Hashimoto was defeated by expressing "the parmanent tax reduction," all the political parties might be defeated, too.

Do you say that the reason of the defeat of Hashimoto is not taking out the permanent tax reduction but taking out it only opportunistically?

However, if business will recover actually by the permanent tax reduction (The existing political parties including the Communist Party advocated so...) why might the voter have had to say no to Hashimoto because of Hashimoto comming back to a correct policy?

The reason that the voter chilled to the tax reduction declaration of Hashimoto is that they did not believe the business recovery by tax reduction and they could not accept it seriously. So they raged at Hashimoto taking out it suddenly. The masses felt the tax reduction speech of Hashimoto doubtful rather than returning to a correct standpoint.

And, it was quite right in a sense. if it is possible to overcome the present serious recession by the tax reduction of some trillions yen and the decreasing of the consumption tax by 2% as the Communist Party express and if it is so easy problem it is likely not to have existed the recession from the beginning.

Just therefore, the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie reged to the sudden change of Hshimoto's attitude. If they believed the actual business recovery by the permanent tax reduction and the decreasing of the consumption tax by 2% why did they need to rage at the Hashimoto's transformation even if they welcomed it.

The opposition party said criticizing the defeat of the Hashimoto regime that people exploded "the angry to the haphazard economic management."

However, is it not "haphazard" demanding to reduce the consumption tax of 5% by 2% as the Communist Party and the Free Party? (Though it can be said it is thorough even in some measure if they told to stop all the consumption tax of 5%.) To say it is able to overcome the present, serious recession by such things is not exactly "Haphazard"? How much is it difference on the whole that Hashimoto told the "permanent tax reduction" posthaste from that the Communist Party and the Free Party told the tax reduction of the consumption tax only by 2%?

The insistence of the Communist Party to reduce the consumption tax by 2% was the same one as the Free Party. The tax reduction that the opposition party insisted in concert also the one of the Liberal-Democratic Party (Though there was a difference in the degree), and the processing idea of the bad debt are looking like the one of the Liberal-Democratic Party. (We pay attention here to the Communist Party hoisting quite the same insistence with the Free Party. This was not a chance agreement but had a deeper meaning.)

In short, the policy that each party including the Communist Party taken out by the name of "Recession measures" was the one the Liberal-Democratic Party took out, the one to follow to it, only such level one as modifying the idea of the Liberal-Democratic Party.

There was not a political party that brought up an idea definitely differnt from the one of the Liberal-Democratic Party. And, such idea was surely nothing excluding an extraordinary inflationism. The opposition party critisized the policy of the Liberal-Democratic Party as insufficient, taking the second move, could not understand whether giving priority the financial rebuild or valueing the business countermeasures, being noncommittal. However, they could not provide definite "counterproposal," and even has no will.

It is the reason that we emphasize the defeat of the Hashimoto regime is the defeat of all existing political parties.

To the overthrow of the Liberal-Democratic Party, and to the overthrow of all existing political parties!

The Liberal-Democratic Party became minorities in the House of Councilors for the time being. It is insufficient for the majority of 262 in 105 seats by about 20 seats.

To tell the truth, though they were minorities up to now they did not get a problem only because the Shamin Party and the Sakigake had run to give help.

However, how is this time? I wonder whether it becoming foolishly this time.

There are no such things. The Progressing Democratic Party (It increased nine seats and became 47 seats.) is nearer to the Liberal-Democratic Party than the Shamin Party and the Komeito (It decreased two seats and became 22 seats.) is giving a wink to the Liberal-Democratic Party clearly.

Of course, the Free Party (It increased 1 seat and secured 12 seats!) can always communicate with each other. Anyway, because it originated from the same Liberal-Democratic Party and the "constitution" is the same.

If the Komeito not to mention the Democratic Party wouldl run to assistance they can secure the majority at once.

The Shamin Party, which already decreased seven seats and had declined to 13 seats, and the Sakigake, though no seat was decreased but only had 3 seats, will be also like to support the Liberal-Democratic Party by the situation. Because they have "previous offense" anyway!

It is an age even the Communist Party also loudly sworn, "We will go together even very much, and will consult on the assumption." It is only from "Strategic consideration" and not from principle that the Communist Party says not to unite with the Liberal-Democratic Party. Why is there the reason not to be able to unite with the Liberal-Democratic Party if it is assumed that it is possible to cooperate in coolness with the Free Party? It might be clear which is on the whole more "Via media" and "Liberal" between Ozawa of the Free Party and Katou of the Liberal-Democratic Party.

There is no such things for the Communist Party to be able to unite with the Hatoyama brother of the Democratic Party and not to be able to unite with Katou. Because, Katou may possibly be more favorable than Hatoyama for the Communist Party. (Of course, the both political standpoint is same, that is, they are all the irresponsible liberal, the liberal only in lip service. ---Of course, such as the liberal not in lip service maight be the contradiction of language.)

To see the personnel of the "Opposition parties" whether we can say the Liberal-Democratic Party to be very embarrassed because of becoming minorities. It might be understood that the Liberal-Democratic Party is not essentially embarrassed at all if you do so.

It might be nonsense to think that it is not possible to do with the Komeito, the Democratic Party, and the Free Party though being able to do with the Shamin Party. (Because, these political parties are the one far nearer the Liberal-Democratic Party than the Shamin Party.)

The more the crisis will deepen, the more it is likely that the Communist Party will also come to help again the Liberal-Democratic Party. Because this party is swearing to take pains for the defense of democracy and capitalism ( for the capitalism "of rule") "for the time being" anyway.

The Liberal-Democratic Party is a happy political party. Because, although it is criticized severely, however, it is counted on in reality and there are only the political parties that embarrassed if the Liberal-Democratic Party is gone.

We emphasized that the defeat of the Liberal-Democratic Party is the defeat of all existing political parties (the bourgeois political party and the petty bourgeois political party) and we should make it so.

Overthrow all the existing political parties and hold up high the flag of the victory of the worker's party on the carcass!

Make up the political party of the working class decisively just now!