-------------------------
In a sense, the selection of textbooks in August represents a complete defeat for the Society for Textbook Reform (hereafter: Society). The textbook selection for elementary and junior-high schools has taken place in 542 districts, but only one has chosen the Society�fs textbook. This textbook has also been rejected by schools affiliated with the national universities. The schools for the disabled under the jurisdiction of Tokyo Municipality and Aichi Prefecture have chosen this textbook, but these were the only public schools to do so. In the case of private schools as well only a very tiny number have selected the new textbook Thus, the number of schools selecting the new reactionary textbook is almost zero, and this represents a defeat for the Society. But the Society has boasted that within �gfive years it will be victorious and exact its revenge.�h This shows that despite their temporary defeat, the workers have not yet gained a definitive victory. Indeed, the vile, naked offensive of the reactionaries and imperialists will only get stronger in the future. This shows us that class-conscious workers will need to strengthen their resolve to fight against them.
-------------------------

Recently, the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) has been triumphantly saying that �gthe people have not accepted the textbook of the Society for Textbook and that �gthe good sense of the people has prevailed.�h In fact, however, the development of imperialistic and state-ist power in Japan is just getting started, and such maneuvers will only increase in the future. Therefore, the class struggles of the workers will also necessarily intensify. The reactionaries will certainly not be stopped with the lighthearted idea that �gthe people have not accepted�h the textbook.

When their decisive defeat became clear on August 16, the Society revealed their shameless nature in the following statement:

�gThere is no way to consider this an example of a rational selection process based upon a correct judgment.�h �g[Each board of education] bowed to foreign pressure, the biased campaign of a section of the media, and an organized offensive campaign of faxes and telephone calls, and ended up treating the [publisher of the text] in a special way.�h

In truth, however, it was the Society itself which employed every dirty means of state power to get their own textbook selected?not �gthe mass media and a small group of anti-establishment politicians,�h as they claim.

They have continuously attacked other textbooks as representing the �gmasochistic�h view of history, called on the teachers to be eliminated from the textbook selection process, and to have school textbooks selected directly by the educational boards (these board members incidentally are not elected officials, but rather people appointed by politicians in power?and everyone in Tokyo knows who exercises power [Ishihara Shintaro]). In other words, they have �gcontinued to exert pressure�h in every way possible to have their own textbook chosen including essentially revising the selection process.

On top of this, reactionary diet members within the LDP, Liberal Party, Democratic Party, as well as Komeito Party have applied pressure on boards of education through the pressure of local political bosses.

In other words, it is the Society itself which has mobilized reactionary forces, and employed various means to have their own textbook selected, and have applied pressure, rather than some sort of �gorganized obstruction of the selection process�h to prevent the selection of the Society�fs textbook. Their complaints are nothing but the old �gfascist�h tactic of hiding one�fs own crimes by loudly pinning them on someone else.

In true adolescent fashion, they blame their own defeat on the slander and �gpressure�h of others, and indulge in a pathetic persecution complex. They don�ft realize that the poor quality of their textbook is the reason that it has been rejected by almost everyone. They should seriously reflect on the hard fact that people have turned their backs on their textbook despite their extensive exertion of state power. In other words, they have created a textbook that is full of such drivel and nonsense that it does not even deserve to be called a textbook.

The Society�fs Dimwitted Book

The head of the Society for Textbook Reform, Nishio, nakedly revealed the essence of his group in the following statement:

�gFor some reason the people of this country were unable to take the first step. We led the board of education to the water�fs edge, but we couldn�ft make them drink.�h

Indeed, the Society used every method?while relying on state power?and applied continuous pressure to the board of education, and they confess this fact with their vulgar expressions of �gdragging the education boards to the water�fs edge.�h

Such conceited expressions show that because of their connection to state power from the beginning, the Society was confident that they would be able to make the board of educations �gdrink.�h

When this didn�ft happen, they obstinately insist that there must have been some �gorganized pressure�h exerted to prevent their textbook from being selected. There is truly no limit to their stupidity and pretentiousness.

The action of the Governor of Tokyo Municipality, Ishihara Shintaro, was also very strange.

Ishihara said that he had �gno comment�h on the selection and appeared to say that this was a question that only concerned the board of education, but he made use of the board under his jurisdiction, and this was almost the only education organ in Japan to select the Society�fs textbook.

In fact, Ishihara has employed every tactic possible for the sake of the Society�fs textbook. First of all, he has continuously publicly endorsed the Society�fs textbook, and said that �gthe Society has received many menacing phone calls and that foreign governments are behind this.�h He has shown his true colors with his casual use of such naked demagoguery that is even more disgusting considering his high position in government.

It is exceedingly clear that foreign �gpower�h is not behind the telephone calls opposing the Society, but Ishihara nonetheless spreads his xenophobic demagoguery.

Moreover, Ishihara has been busy appointing members to the educational board who are under his authority, so that they will carry out his will.

Of the six board members, already five of them have been appointed by Ishihara, and basically share his reactionary standpoint.

Especially the three new members of the board have been at the forefront of the fight for the Society�fs textbook. Therefore, it is complete fraudulent and formalistic argument to say that the selection of the textbook is the autonomous decision of the board of education.

Ishihara has been saying that �gthe selection of the textbooks should be decided by the boards of education without the teachers,�h and has �gstrongly requested that the local boards of education make effective use of the materials of the Tokyo Municipality, and make a correct and just selection of the textbooks,�h and has scolded the boards of education for paying too much attention to the lower ranks, rather than firmly �gcarrying out their duty.�h

The meaning of such statements is perfectly clear. The �gmaterials of the Municipality�h refers to the materials stating that the Society�fs textbook is in accordance with the Ministry of Education�fs curriculum guidelines and should thus be selected, which of course is nothing but the naked exertion of pressure.

Even though Ishihara�fs intention in forcing the schools for the disabled to choose the Society�fs textbook is perfectly clear, he still doesn�ft accept responsibility for his action. What is he afraid of? His attitude is totally contemptible.

This time almost all of the education boards have turned their back on the reactionary textbook. However, to lightheartedly think, along the lines of the JCP, that this �gis an expression of the good sense of the people�h reveals a soft, petty bourgeois attitude.

The Society for Textbook Reform has said that the education boards have �gwavered�h because this was the first time, and have elected to take the safe route, but they have boasted that in four years these same boards will make a completely different choice.

Of course, to some extent this is sour grapes on the part of the Society. But workers must also realize that this threat of revenge is more than just sour grapes. That is, the bourgeoisie in Japan is in fact shifting towards becoming an imperialistic bourgeoisie, and this will increasingly be a main social factor.

For this reason, class-conscious workers must maintain a strong sense of caution, and firmly and continuously fight against this trend until the rule of capital is swept away.

�@

Prime Minister Koizumi ended up paying a �gpublic visit�h to Yasukuni Shrine. But instead of visiting on August 15, as he had originally pledged to do, he hurriedly made his visit two days earlier. At almost the same time he was making his visit, Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda was explaining Koizumi�fs visit.

Fukuda told reporters that Koizumi�fs visit was the result of �gendless consideration, but this only shows the shallowness of the Prime Minister�fs mental capacity.

Far from appearing as the result of �gendless consideration,�h Koizumi�fs decision seemed more like a classic example of imprudence and eclecticism wherein someone tries to arrive at a middle point between two opposing camps.

On the one hand, Koizumi had made a �gpublic promise�h to the reactionary camp to definitely visit the shrine on August 15, but due to the awkwardness of such a visit, he chose a �gmiddle path,�h and engaged in a sort of deception. But this only revealed that Koizumi has no clear position towards this problem.

Koizumi�fs first proposal to visit Yasukuni Shrine was based not on any strong belief, but rather with an eye to gaining votes within the LDP. This was just an example of fanfare or a facade to join hands with the reactionary forces within the LDP, and did not stem from any internal necessity to visit the shrine on the basis of a belief.

Koizumi says that he was �ghappy to discover that he was not a stubborn person unwilling to change his mind, but rather a flexible person able to listen to other people�fs views.�h He has defended his actions by saying that that �gKoizumi has one mouth, but two ears.�h However, his handling of the Yasukuni situation has revealed to the entire world that he is nothing but an opportunistic and mediocre politician in the LDP mold.

Koizumi has also said that he has backed down on the issue of Yasukuni Shrine, but he will not back down on structural reform, and that his recent compromise on the visit was done to carry out these firm reforms.

But is this really the case?

In fact, the reactionary forces within the LDP who were counting on Koizumi�fs visit, have suddenly become disillusioned with the Prime Minister, and will likely take a more �ghard-line�h stance towards him.

But it has become clear that Koizumi�fs pledge to visit Yasukuni on the fifteenth, was simply lip service leading up to the election within the LDP for Prime Minister for the sake of increasing his base of support among conservative LDP members?or at least weakening their opposition.

This maneuver will certainly not be insignificant in determining Koizumi�fs political fate.

Koizumi has played the role of Hamlet. On the one hand, he has appealed to LDP conservatives by promising to visit Yasukuni among other things, but this pledge has come not from any personal belief but simply something that can be changed and revised.

At the same time, he has appealed to liberals, and sought a �gmiddle�h way whereby he might find policies that gain the support of both camps. Of course, such a �gmiddle�h way cannot exist, and in the end he can only confusedly try to split the difference between the opposing forces.

This standpoint will only annoy both sides, and estrange Koizumi from them. In this way, the problem of the Yasukuni Shrine is the first step of Koizumi�fs downfall.

His oscillation and confusion, and intrigues and eclecticism are the characteristics and true nature of Koizumi�fs politics.

He kept repeating that �ghe visited Yasukuni Shrine to clearly announce that �gwe should never wage such a war again.�h However, it is abundantly clear that it is the height of hypocrisy to manifest an intention to not wage an imperialist, reactionary war by going to a shrine which has been the symbol of such wars, and indeed existed for the sole purpose of justifying and prettifying war.

If Koizumi is incapable of grasping the shamelessness of his sophistry, this only shows that he possesses almost no power of discernment. On the other hand, if Koizumi has made such statements in full awareness of his own hypocrisy and twisted nature, then he is truly one of the shabbiest, fraudulent politicians around these days.

The disguise covering Koizumi�fs politics is beginning to peel away. Just like his approach to the shrine issue, his �gstructural reforms�h will no doubt oscillate between the pressure from two sides, and necessarily become deadlocked. This is certain to be the fate of Koizumi�fs �greform�h politics.

(Translated by Roy)