Part 2: What Kind of Practice Does the SWP Carry Out?

Up to this point, the SWP has organized struggles against the rule of capital in workplaces and communities. In addition to wrestling with realistic tasks, we have participated in election campaigns and fought in elections for both houses of the Diet. Although we have not yet produced a Diet member to firmly stand with the workers, our efforts clearly show that the SWP is not an anti-parliamentarian or anarchistic party. At the same time, the SWP rejects bourgeois (or petit bourgeois) parliamentarianism. The Diet is merely a means or tool for the rule of monopoly capital. Therefore, we realize that ultimately the working class must also overcome the parliamentary system.

Parliament and parliamentary elections--i.e. the bourgeois democratic system--are contradictory things. On the one hand, this is a system for capital in the sense that it is the most suitable system of government for its rule. On the other hand, however, this also becomes a public site for political and class struggles. Workers, therefore, have no choice but to wage an all-out struggle within this system, otherwise it is impossible to rally and organize against the power of capital’s rule, and train and organize ourselves to acquire the power to finally sweep the bourgeoisie away. In this sense, we consider the Diet and participation in the Diet election struggles to be important, and we have participated to the greatest extent possible.

Of course, we realize that this is only one aspect of the workers’ class struggles to overcome the contradictions of capitalist society. Consequently, carrying out the class struggle is our practical foundation and guiding principle.

Because the class struggle is a struggle between class and class, it ultimately becomes a power confrontation, and the bourgeoisie must be overcome by force. The SWP recognizes this because it is a revolutionary socialist party--differing decisively from the SDP and JCP.

Of course, it is completely wrong to narrowly conceive of class struggle as simply the carrying out of armed conflict. In the class struggle, the “violent” moment is only one stage in the course of the movement. It occupies a decisive position, but on the other hand, the organizational moment of the struggle and the movement of the working class occupy the overall, universal position. In this sense we consider it to be of decisive importance to organize workers for both “realistic” struggles and the struggle for socialism as the final liberation of the working class, and we dedicate all of our energy towards carrying out this task. We are aware of the need to organize a workers party that unites the workers’ mass movement and daily struggles, and we are working to carry out this task.

Therefore, the SWP insists on the necessity of struggling to unite “practical” and socialist objectives. Trade union and “realistic” struggles that are cut off from socialist goals will in the end prove to be hollow, and fall into economism, trade unionism and reformism. On the other hand, “socialist” struggles that are cut off from the realistic tasks of the working class will become abstract and ultimately fall into circle-ism, and idealism.

Part 3: The “Relation” Between the SWP and Unions

As a realistic party of the working class, the SWP fully recognizes the necessity and importance for the working class and workers party to fight together with the labor unions. This being the case, what is the difference between the SWP and trade union or economist organizations? Further, how do we conceive of the relationship between labor unions and the party--what is the practical connection between them?

The SWP rejects attempts to absolutize trade unions or view them as being completely independent of the socialist movement. We insist that unless the trade union struggles are also united with revolutionary socialist struggles against capital, they will be meaningless in the end, and suffer bourgeois corruption. On this point the SWP is clearly different than other petty bourgeois “workers” or “socialist” parties.

Of course the problem is not a simple choice between “socialist struggles” or “trade union struggles,” but rather their combination. Up to now this necessary combination of the two has been denied behind the excuse that this would mean “the party would rule the union” or “lead it around by the nose.” The problem, however, is not the connection between socialist and trade union struggles, but rather the way that this has been carried out.

This combination should be carried out in a form that corresponds to the nature of the labor union movement and follows the principles of this movement. However, this is neglected or ignored by impatient activists and sectarian Stalinists (JCP), and as a result--and this is decisively beneficial to the bourgeoisie--the unchallenged prejudice arises within the trade unions that an alliance with socialists is detrimental. The SWP has no interest in opposing the nature of labor unions, ignoring the natural process of their growth, or “foisting” socialist views on them. The SWP fights for socialism and the final liberation of the working class, and has no interest in “controlling” the labor unions. We participate in the labor union movement and clearly state that we have no other intention or goal apart from supporting the labor unions and their movement, and strengthening their class-consciousness.

The SWP is of course opposed to the mechanical or insensitive formation of a “labor union party.” However, we think it is incorrect for labor unions to pretend that they have no relation to politics or political parties. Labor unions should support and unite with class politics and class political party factions and fight hand in hand. In this case, what should be renounced is not the struggle itself, but rather how the struggle is carried out. We must sternly reject the sectarianism of parties (SDP and JCP) who, among other things, surround labor unions, treat them as if they were their own domain or territory, and manage them arbitrarily (completely contrary to workers democracy!). All historical and practical experience clearly shows that such tactics weaken the labor union movement, undermine workers’ unity, and dissolve workers’ struggles.

Part 4: Struggling Against Modern Capitalism in Decline

Modern capitalism has several fundamental characteristics. The high level of development of the joint stock company system shows that capital has already become organized not as individual capital, but rather as combined capital or gigantic monopoly capital. As a result, it is the functionaries of capital, not the private owners of capital, who command the ruling positions and conspire with state bureaucrats and politicians to control the state. Of course, this combined capital does not negate the existence of individual capital, which is the foundation upon which it is based and develops, throughout society.

With the rule of functionary capitalists, the socialization of capital is driven forward to an extreme within the framework of capitalism, and thereby reveals that the conditions for socialism are formally in place. However, needless to say, this does not justify the view that the workers’ goal is to improve bourgeois society, or that this is the road to socialism.

Furthermore, the ties between the state and capitalism are strengthened in modern capitalism, and this results in state-monopoly capitalism. The modern state is no longer the “cheap” (economical) state of the era of free competition. Rather, this is a state that works for the benefit of capital and serves big capital, not only politically, but also in a wide range of economic areas. The state works for the sake of all capital through finances, state trusts and sometimes directly through actual capital. The main state lever of power is the managed currency system--i.e. the abandoning of the gold standard. Through this system, the bourgeoisie has acquired “flexibility” in finances and state trusts, and a means for expansion. This stage of capitalism, however, has given birth to its own particular contradictions, which have accelerated and deepened--including inflation, financial bankruptcy, out of control trusts, considerable economic parasitism, and the constant disruption of economic relations between nations. This continues to prepare the way for the dissolution of capitalism.

Capitalist relations of production have unleashed the productive power of human labor and made its enormous development possible. However, this productive power has not meant the liberation of labor, but rather has resulted in the appearance of methods that actually strengthen the terrible exploitation and oppression of labor. This has also become the source of the enormous profits for monopoly capital, and therefore has led to deepening social decay and parasitism. This phenomenon of decline is the classic expression of the peculiar topsy-turvy nature of capitalistic relations of production, and reveals the necessity and inevitability that this society be transformed into socialism.

At the very root of the problem is private ownership and capitalistic production. Since bidding farewell to primitive communism, mankind has consistently strengthened private property, and continued to develop in this direction. Through this process, productive power has been developed, and the material conditions for mankind’s final liberation have been created. Modern capitalism is the highest stage of this development. In this society, there is the remarkable and bewildering contradiction between the principle of private property, on the one hand, and the developed social forces of production, on the other. This is the fundamental cause of important twentieth century phenomena such as the Great Depression, imperialism, militarism, the development of fascism, world wars, inflation (the continuous deterioration of currencies), and general social decline.

At this moment, workers throughout the world must unite and advance the class struggle to overcome capitalist production and make possible the transition to a socialist society in which the means of production become common property--i.e. a society governed by the “principle of community.”

Part 5: What was “Socialism” in the USSR and China?

The SWP’s Concept of State Capitalism

But when the SWP says that workers must fight for the goal of socialism, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie (especially the slovenly intellectuals) cry out: “Socialism and communism are bankrupt, just look at the Soviet Union and China!” In reacting this way, these people only reveal their ugly character as followers of the rule of capital.

Still, in order for the workers to fight for the goal of socialism, an accurate historical and theoretical summary of the utter failure of 20th century “socialism”--that is the reality of state capitalism in the USSR, China and other countries--must be carried out.

Already nearly thirty years ago--when we were called the Marxist Workers League--we opposed the obstinate view of the Socialist and Communist parties that the USSR and China were “socialist” countries. We revealed that these states, far from representing socialism, were essentially capitalistic societies, and were increasingly becoming bourgeois states. We called for the overthrow of these “Stalinist states” (state capitalist states).

At that time, the JCP slandered one of our (MWL) candidates in the Diet election campaign as being “a counter-revolutionary and anti-socialist aiming for the overthrow of socialism with the call for the overthrow of the Soviet bureaucrats.” But today what does this Stalinist party (JCP) have to say today about the system of the Soviet Union and China? Now they are only able to offer the irresponsible agnosticism that “this system cannot be called socialism, but we don’t know exactly what sort of system it was”!

It was already clear that the Russian revolution couldn’t overcome capitalism as early as the era of Lenin and the “NEP” policy (i.e. the implementation of the policy “authorizing” capitalism). Russia at that time, with its undeveloped industrial productive power, 90% peasant population, and relatively insignificant working class, was unable to make the direct transition to socialism. The rule of the workers (and peasants) led to a “state capitalist” system; in other words, a society in which capitalist relations of production fundamentally prevail.

The “impatient” Stalin through the bureaucratic centralization of this state capitalism system, and the abnormal strengthening of the role of the state, deceived both himself and others into believing that “socialism had been established,” and he carried out the “artificial” development of industry and productive power, and created an atrocious dictatorial system. For Russia, of course, state capitalism meant enormous historical development, but this could only be achieved through the cruel and absolute exploitation of the workers and peasants and their transformation into slaves. There is no justification to call this system “socialism”.

In Stalin’s thoroughly controlled society, capital and the means of production existed and functioned as state capital. As early as the 1950s, demands were expressed for the “liberalization” of economic society. Later, these demands grew stronger, and were not extinguished and never fully retreated.

Today China is said to have a “market-socialist economy,” but of course such a thing cannot exist. In fact, this is merely an ideological expression of Chinese state capitalism.

Part 6: What is the Essence of the Modern State?

Are there Prospects to Reform It?

We have already talked about the modern state, but it is necessary to further examine the essence of this state since some people insist that as a “welfare state” it occupies a “neutral position” vis-a-vis class struggle and conflict, and therefore workers’ liberation is possible even without altering the state. Here we are not only referring to the common sense of bourgeois liberals. In fact, the Communist Party also defends this point of view, and bases its practice upon it.

This reformist view is based on the following reasoning: The modern state protects and plans for the interests of monopoly capital, but it also eagerly tackles “nationalistic” tasks, such as welfare, trade protectionism, and activities for public interests. Through the development of these functions (through various improvements and reforms of the bourgeois state) the liberation of workers is also possible.

However, isn’t it perfectly clear that welfare, protectionism and other regulations, in the end are simply for the benefit of monopoly capital and the maintenance of this system?

Now it has become clear that this way of appeasing the workers has collapsed. This is clearly expressed by the clamor of the bourgeoisie that Keynesian economics has failed. The bourgeoisie today are once again advocating “free competition” and “liberalism,” but since this has also failed, they will no doubt renew their faith in Keynesian economics and the rule of “reason” within the framework of capitalism--i.e. the Keynesian concept that rather than letting the economy take its natural course, it is necessary for people to intervene in the economic process. Since both the liberalist and reformist methods have failed, this basically amounts to the bourgeoisie confessing that they are no longer holding any trump cards.

The bourgeois nations in the world today are--almost without exception --economically bankrupt. There are states that have enormous debts amounting to hundreds of thousands of Yen per citizen, and they have been unable to find any way to reduce this debt, thereby inviting financial bankruptcy and inflation. It is clear that such an incompetent state is already nothing but a fetter for the welfare and liberation of workers. This reveals that such a state should not be reformed, but rather overthrown, smashed to pieces, and replaced by a workers’ state.

The Communist Party, together with the SDP and liberals, are shouting that the state can be reformed, and that reform policies can be carried out to benefit the workers. Their goal is to reform this state and “take it over” in its current state in order to implement welfare and protectionist policies.

However, this position is a fantasy. Under the rule of capital these reformists ultimately end up telling the workers and farmers to assume a servile position of waiting expectantly for crumbs from capital. At any rate, this position is bound to collapse in the end.

Part 7: On the Problem of Nationalism

Today the “problem of nationalism” is appearing as an increasingly troublesome issue. For example, the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the resulting nationalism embroiled relatives and neighbors in a cruel war.

Of course, even in the case of Yugoslavia, nationalism is not simply a question of a belief, but one of the impulses of capitalistic development in this country. Nationalism has developed whenever and wherever the bourgeoisie has attempted to organize its own state--the model example being the French Revolution in the 18^th century. From this point of view, the bourgeois character of nationalism is clear. (Of course, this is a general proposition. In the case of Serbia or Croatia, for example, reactionaries often use nationalism to strengthen their own power, and this makes the problem of nationalism more complicated.)

The SWP emphasizes that nationalism has become increasingly reactionary in the period since the end of World War II--unlike the earlier period and Lenin’s own era.

In fact, since the end of the Second World War, almost all of the “national” bourgeoisie have organized themselves as a state. The time has already arrived when only socialist liberation--not national liberation--has progressive meaning for mankind. In this period--especially in a monopoly capital society and “advanced” capitalist state such as Japan--fostering nationalism plays an extremely reactionary role (of course the JCP is carrying this out nonetheless).

The SWP stresses that any sort of nationalism is reactionary, including Ainu or Korean (Residents of Japan) Nationalism. The oppressed position such groups have been forced into up still does not justify their nationalism. Further, even taking into consideration their “nationalistic sensibilities,” the question of protecting or supporting their nationalism is a completely separate issue. This can be understood by looking at the movement of Koreans Residents of Japan to attain jobs as public officials. Their nationalistic position is becoming increasingly contradictory and is falling apart because they are seeking assistance from the same Japanese government they once reproached and disavowed.

Japanese monopoly capitalism, which has appeared as an imperialistic bourgeoisie, vigorously encourages Japanese ethnocentrism and nationalism, and is scheming to inject this poison into the workers. The recently fashionable so-called “liberal view of history”--in fact the “imperialist view of history” in disguise--clearly expresses the intentions of the bourgeoisie. This group of revisionists glorifies Japan’s imperialist wars, and says that it is wrong to criticize Japanese history, and thereby try to elevate the nationalistic consciousness of Japanese people.

It is not nationalism, but the principle of class that must be held high. Nationalism is bourgeois thought--a historical expression of its standpoint and interests. Nationalism was born and developed out of the historical necessity of the bourgeoisie to form a nation-state. Thus, nationalism is the mortal enemy for the working class based on internationalism. The historical stage when the bourgeoisie organized the nation-state, struggled against the old feudalistic power, and had a progressive role to play, is already in the distant past (fundamentally for Japan this period ended with the Meiji Restoration in 1867). Class-conscious workers must break away from racism and nationalism, and unite firmly and strongly under the banner of socialism and internationalism.

Part 8: SWP on Sexual Discrimination and the “Family”

The SWP emphasizes that modern capitalist society, that is, modern democratic society, can never end sexual discrimination and bring about the genuine emancipation of women--even though lip service is paid to “women’s equality”

Certainly the development of capitalism and the accompanying appearance of political democracy (“equality before the law”) was a step forward for women’s liberation. However, under capitalist society, the inequality between men and women cannot be fully overcome, and the roots of this inequality do not simply lie in a defect of the laws (e.g. the JCP’s position is that there are “inadequate rights”). Rather, this inequality has a clear economic foundation.

The nature of capital is to mercilessly use and exploit everything for the sake of profit. For this reason, women as “inferior” labor power--this is connected to the natural function of women related to pregnancy and childbirth--are placed in a decisively disadvantageous position. This shows us that under the rule of capital the inferior position of women cannot be completely overcome.

Under capitalism, not only can women not overcome the position they were burdened with in the previous society--women’s position as “domestic slaves” and the personal property of men, which is the essence of the individual family system--but on top of this they are saddled with new difficulties. That is to say, they are burdened with domestic and sexual slavery, as well as the double or triple burden of wage slavery. Engels wrote that in this sense, women who completely carry out domestic housework are unable to advance as workers, while those who advance socially as workers are unable play a role in the household.

Recently the fantasy is being spread that even the liberation (or at least some improvement) of the position of “housewife” is possible. The idea has been spread that the “cost of a housewife’s labor” should be valued, and a movement along this line has been carried out. However, this way of thinking takes as its point of departure the standpoint that a “housewife” is a husband’s individual property. We consider this to be a reactionary movement that does not fundamentally reflect on the limitations inherent to capitalism concerning equality.

The SWP insists that women’s liberation will come together with the dissolution of the modern individual family system (i.e. women’s position as a “domestic slave”). The dissolution of this family system will come with the overcoming of the capitalist means of production.

Today, the issue of the right of women to keep their maiden name is frequently discussed, and this certainly is a step forward and an improvement; but this is a small improvement that does not touch at all on the foundation of the family system, and in this sense it is deceptive.

Using the excuse that equality between men and women is at hand, new offensives are being launched against women such as the abolishment of protective legislation for women. This reveals that the liberation of women through democracy under capitalism is a fantasy. The fact becomes clear that without combining their power with male workers and advancing the class struggle together, the full liberation of women is impossible.

Part 9: Modern Education & the Prospect for Changing It

Modern education (i.e. post war bourgeois “democratic” education, or so-called “liberal” education) has now completely degenerated, and is unable to carry out its social function of helping to raise a healthy and sound future generation. This is the inevitable result of education having fallen under the influence of capital.

“Public” education is, in the end, education for the state. This conclusion is verified historically and factually by simply glancing at the history of Japanese education. Of course this was the case in the Meiji Era, and the undeveloped democratic and liberal education that accompanied the period of “Taisho democracy” was later replaced by military and nationalist education (“teaching loyalty”). Today as well, the essence of “public” education is revealed by the imposition of the hinomaru (rising-sun flag) and kimigayo (“national anthem”) at school graduation and entrance ceremonies..

On the other hand, “private” education is education for the sake of profit. Regardless of the flowery words one plays around with, this reality cannot be denied. In this sense, public and private education have both failed, and this is unavoidable. It is no accident that private education, rather than fundamentally resisting the existence of so-called “examination wars,” has in fact been a strong advocate of them.

“Educational status society” [gakureki-shakai] is often thought to be a phenomenon unique to Japanese capitalism, but this can also be seen, more or less, in every bourgeois society throughout the world. In this sense, this is an inevitable aspect of capitalism imposed by the ruling class for the sake of capital’s rule. Education is adapted to the rule of capital and subordinate to it. This fact is seen in such expressions as “educational status society” and “exam competition”, as well as in the “differences” between schools, in the failure and alienation that marks the educational system, the bullying among students, school truancy, and so on.

Putting aside the question of primary education, it is clear that “higher” education is simply for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, rather than the common people. The modern university is a sort of closed guild for bourgeois intellectuals that, on the whole, exists in order to ideologically support the rule of capital. We recognize that “university self-government” actually serves to increase the prestige of the universities as an organ of bourgeois ideology--unlike the foolish members of the JCP who believe that universities exist “for the pursuit of truth.”

Needless to say, modern education must be fundamentally changed, not “reformed.” Still, education alone cannot overcome the current situation and standards of society. In this sense, educational reform does not precede societal change, but rather is the result of social change. The only correct standpoint for workers is to link educational reform to the revolutionizing of bourgeois society, and it must be subordinated to this task.

Part 10: U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and the Theory of “U.S. Domination”

The JCP’s view of the current stage of Japanese capitalism and the nature of “liberation” is incorrect, and completely nonsensical. They obstinately repeat the view that Japan is still not an independent state, or a state ruled by monopoly capital, but rather “semi” independent state dependent on the U.S. that has yet to win “true” democracy.

Based on this interpretation of “reality,” they reach the conclusion that the coming revolution in Japan should not be a socialist revolution to abolish the rule of capital and liberate workers from their exploitation, but instead a revolution to achieve the liberation of the “nation,” i.e. a “national- democratic revolution” (or by removing the word revolution: a “democratic improvement”). In short, this is the Stalinist “revolutionary stage theory” which insists that it is correct to begin first with the “democratic” stage.

But what “reality” could the JCP possibly be looking at to say that Japan is a “semi” colony of the U.S. and not yet a democratic nation. Certainly the U.S. has military bases in Japan, and the two countries are bound together by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. But to say that Japan is not a monopoly capitalist nation, or that the political system in Japan is not democratic, is nothing but the sort of nonsense typical of petty bourgeois political parties.

Already as soon as the Allied Occupation had ended, the Japanese bourgeoisie firmly grasped state “sovereignty” in their own hands. The alliance with the United States in no way negated the rule of monopoly capital. Of course, Japan was the “junior” alliance partner (the JCP’s expression), but this stemmed from the balance of power. At any rate, whether a “junior partner” or “equal,” the fact that the Japan-U.S. relationship is an “alliance” shows that Japan is not a U.S. colony. Therefore, it should be clear that the workers’ task is not a “national” one (national independence, etc.).

Anyone can confirm that the Japanese state--the upstart among the world’s prominent monopoly capitalist nations--is maneuvering to be able to send its armed forces (“self defense forces”) to foreign country, while hiding behind the slogan of “making an international contribution,” and also trying to assume a more important role within the United Nations.

It is a clear fact that Japan’s monopoly capitalist state is imperialist, but the JCP ignores this reality and in practice treats it as a matter of little importance. In fact, this stage of Japanese monopoly capital is the foundation for the reactionary change in Japanese politics and thought, and the appearance of nationalism.

In such a period, what possible meaning can there be in spreading nationalism to the workers? Has this irresponsible petit bourgeois party--the JCP!--stopped to think about this for just a moment? Isn’t it obvious that such tactics only help monopoly capital and support its imperialist schemes. In this sense, the JCP is carrying out the vilest betrayal of the workers.

The SWP tells the workers that Japan is already a country ruled by monopoly capital, and has become an imperialistic nation, and therefore the practical “strategy” can only be workers’ liberation, in other words: socialist revolution.

Part 11: Resisting all Opportunism:

The Call for the Formation of a New Workers’ Party

The SWP clearly states that it bases itself on revolutionary socialism. Therefore, we are firmly opposed to, and have consistently carried out struggles against, social democracy, reformism, so-called “citizen” movements, trade-unionism, and radicalism.

These movements are expressions of bourgeois attempts to corrupt the workers and keep them in the position of capital’s eternal slave. These ideologies should not be brought into the workers movement. We have been thoroughly struggling against the corruption and confusion of such opportunism.

The rallying of workers into one organizational force, and the opposition to such rubbish as social democracy and reformism, is of decisive importance for workers’ liberation--a necessary precondition. For this reason we have made a complete break with all of the rotten established political parties, are building a new workers party, and call for the struggle to be waged by combining forces in a new organization.

Based on Marxism, as well as our observation and analysis of present-day capitalism, we know that the liberation of the working class is a historical necessity and the inescapable outcome of the internal development of capitalism (and its objective dissolution and collapse!). For this precise reason, we reject social democracy, reformism, and trade-unionism.

Certainly the liberation of the workers is not only an objective process. A massive transformation of the workers’ consciousness is also necessary, and we consider this to be a decisive factor for the self-liberation of the workers. However, this massive transformation of workers’ consciousness is not only the result of subjective effort, but is above all the outcome of the changes in the objective situation. We recognize the need to “construct” our movement on the basis of the objective process, rather than on a subjectivistic basis.

It is clear that today the revolutionary socialist movement faces difficult tasks. The parasitism and decay of modern monopoly capitalism have terribly contaminated the consciousness of workers and youth.

The setbacks in the workers movement and its state of dissolution are also a big obstacle to the development of the socialist movement. Furthermore, many workers--not to mention petty bourgeois intellectuals--maintain a suspicious view of socialism because of the terrible reality of Soviet and Chinese “socialism”--of course this is actually the reality of Stalinism, i.e. state capitalism. One often hears people say: “Didn’t socialism fail in the USSR and China; or: What guarantee is there that socialism won’t fail again?” Many people think that a “prosperous” capitalism is at least not as bad as the failed, disintegrating systems of “socialism.”

However, now the USSR and China appear openly as capitalist states, and the experience of Stalinism is already slipping into the past. We have also presented a correct understanding of the system of the Soviet and Chinese systems, so we are confident that we will be able to sweep away the prejudices of workers and young people.

More than anything, however, the daily development of the contradictions of capital, the oppression and exploitation of workers, and the inhuman rule of capital, will in end the end open the eyes of tens of thousands of workers, and pave the way for socialism.

A Short History of the Creation of the SWP

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was formed in May 1984. The reason for the creation of a new workers’ party was the complete degeneration of the Social Democratic Party (SDP--formerly the Socialist Party of Japan) and the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), which had claimed to be workers parties. Of course, these parties were not true socialist parties to begin with, but in recent years their corruption has deepened, and the workers have abandoned them. These pseudo workers parties have thrown away the ideals of socialism--ideals that have been held by workers throughout the world--and transformed themselves into completely bourgeois, reformist parties. The SWP had been fighting to build a mass party, which can develop the class struggles of the workers for the revolutionary overthrow of the rule of monopoly capital.

Although the SWP was only formed in 1984, we have existed as a political tendency for more than twenty years before this time. Here we would like to provide a brief overview of the origins of our party.

The history of our struggles dates back to the Nationwide Social Science Study Group (zenkoku-shaken), which was formed in December 1963. At this time, the radical student and workers movement opposing the 1960 Japan- U.S. Security Treat (ANPO), which was led by the Communist League [also known as the Bund], had collapsed. Soon after 1960, the Bund split into a number of factions. Zenkoku-shaken emerged from this process.

In the early and mid 1950s, Japanese Communist Party based itself on the mistaken dogma that Japan was an American dependency, and the JCP stubbornly held the view that the coming revolution in Japan would be a revolution of national independence to realize democracy. The activities of this Stalinist party displayed various shades of opportunism.

In the wake of the Polish and Hungarian anti-Stalinist rebellions of 1956, the student members of JCP began to doubt the standpoint of Stalinism, and called into question the idea that the Soviet Union was a socialist society. As a result, these students left the Communist Party, and in 1958 they formed the Communist League [Bund]. This new organization was at the forefront of the 1960 anti-ANPO movement.

This Bund clearly recognized that the coming revolution of Japan would be a revolution to realize socialism since the domination of monopoly capital already had been established in Japan at that time, and Japan had become politically independent of the United States after the 1952 San Francisco peace treaty. Accordingly, the revision of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty in 1960 did not mean that Japan would become even more dependent on U.S., as the JCP claimed. Rather, this revision meant that Japan, as an independent state, had formed an imperialistic alliance with the United States.

Despite such correct analyses, the Bund had many limitations, and the organization was marked by radicalism. Bund activists believed that if the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty were crushed, a revolution could break out immediately. When the movement against the treaty failed, and the security treaty was finally approved, the Bund could not escape disintegration, and the organization split into a number of factions.

Our study group, zenkoku-shaken, emerged from the dissolved Bund, and rallied its most proletarian wing. Zenkoku-shaken had its origin in the so-called Battle Flag Faction [senki-ha] that emerged from the former Bund in the course of factional struggles from 1960-1. At the time, the Bund was criticized for its Blanquism, and our starting point was also the positive assimilation of this criticism. We realized that it is necessary to sublate petit-bourgeois radicalism in order to form a true proletarian organization that is able to organize revolutionary proletarian struggles.

Unfortunately, many genuine radicals who had been leaders of the Bund, bowed to the superficial criticism of Blanquism then being offered by the so-called Revolutionary Communist League (RCL), and ended up joining this organization. We rejected their facile conversion, and chose a completely different path, because we recognized the superficiality of the RCL’s criticism of Blanquism, and that this organization had also not overcome radicalism.

It is impossible to organize a revolutionary political party, without really sublating radicalism and obtaining a scientific understanding of the present-day world and the ideology of the proletariat. Moreover, it is totally meaningless to call oneself a political party in name only, without being connected to advanced elements of the proletariat. For this reason, we did not immediately organize a political party, and instead created the zenkoku-shaken as a study group to prepare for the creation of a real workers party.

The rules of zenkoku-shaken were very simple, and there were only five articles. Article two stipulated the aim of the organization:

Members should maintain the principles of Marxism-Leninism, and make an effort to apply these principles to the class struggle. The task of the moment is to prepare theoretically and practically to organize a mass communist party of the working class.

We also published the first issue of issue of our theoretical journal: Scientific Communism [kagakuteki kyosanshugi], which clarified our ideological standpoint. We stated that our aim was not to “immediately organize the communist movement,” but to prepare theoretically and practically for that purpose. We laid particular emphasis on the need for theoretical study.

In this way, we formed a study circle. However, this was not an ordinary circle, but rather a revolutionary circle of Marxists. Due to our small numbers, our main activity was necessarily theoretical work, but we also worked hard to reach the workers (e.g. our participation in demonstrations and May Day leaflets), as well as trying to develop young activists. From May 1, 1966, we began to publish a biweekly newspaper, hibana (The Spark).

Our main theoretical activity during this early period focused on criticizing Stalinism, as well as Uno Kozo’s economics, and the subjectivistic philosophy of Kuroda Kan’ichi (leader of the RCL), which had been the main ideological pillars of the Japanese “New Left” movement. More specifically, our studies of the time included: a history of the postwar labor movement in Japan and criticism of the economism and trade-unionism of the General Council of Trade Unions of Japan and JCP’s trade union tactics; an overview and criticism of Stalinist and Trotskyist united front tactics and the historical experiences of popular front governments; a criticism of illusions concerning the Minobe reformist administration in Tokyo and the reformist line of the SDP and JCP who had supported it; an analysis of national liberation movements; research on the USSR; criticism of the imperialism of Japanese monopoly capital which was developing rapidly; a criticism of the JCP’s line of national independence and democratic revolution, etc. Thus, our theoretical activities covered almost every important problem concerning the strategy and tactics of the proletariat in the revolutionary socialist movement. These studies were published in our newspaper, theoretical journal, as well as in a number of books.

In this way, the activities of zenkoku-shaken made steady progress. At the same time, however, our organization did not grow as easily as we had hoped. We have described this period of the mid 1960s in the following way:

We lived in an age where the first radical movement of 1958-1960, organized by the Communist League, had collapsed. This had resulted in deep despair and hopelessness among the young intellectuals and students who had been leading the revolutionary struggles in those days. Our activities were restricted to propaganda by means of our newspaper and other publications, and to our small-scale study groups. Objectively and subjectively, we were in a situation where we had no choice but to patiently put one small stone after another. Often one person joined our group just as another person was leaving.

However, our relative isolation eventually ended. With the rise of the second radical movement around 1970 centering on opposition to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the movement for the return of Okinawa, proletarian elements from the movement began to join zenkoku-shaken one after another. At the time, we clearly pointed out the limitations of this second major radical movement, while at the same time appreciating its revolutionary aspects. We stated that we should not lead such a radical petty bourgeois movement.

In May 1969, we held the Third General Meeting of zenkoku-shaken, and stressed the necessity of the struggle for the revolutionary workers party in the following way: “Our task is to lead the revolutionary struggle of proletariat, and for that purpose, we have to build a strong revolutionary party that joins hands with proletariat.” At this time, we felt that the conditions for turning zenkoku-shaken into a political organization of the were ripe. This Third General Meeting was the starting point for the creation of a new organization. At the meeting we evaluated the postwar world system and the character of Japanese capitalism. We also described the nature of the SDP, JCP, and New Left made our practical tasks clear.

Finally on May 23, 1971, the editorial committee of zenkoku-shaken adopted the resolution that “we should hold the Fourth General Meeting the following summer to form a political organization, and that we should make every possible preparation for this meeting.” In this way, Fourth General Meeting in Tokyo, on July 22-23, 1971 become the founding meeting of marurodo (Marxist Workers League--MWL). After two days of long and serious discussions at the meeting, we adopted a socialist platform founded on Marxism, and the party rules based on the principle of democratic centralism. The creation of this revolutionary political organization meant that eight long years of theoretical and organizational activities within zenkoku-shaken had finally borne fruit.

It is no exaggeration to say that the program of MWL adopted at the meeting, was the only program in Japan aiming for socialist revolution that consistently applied Marxism to both the present-day reality of Japan, and the path of the revolutionary movement in Japan.

First of all, our program theoretically defined the historical character of capitalism, the necessity of socialism and its significance. The program defined the character of Japanese revolution as: “a proletarian socialist revolution to overthrow monopoly capital since its rule had been established along with the political system of bourgeois democracy.” The MWL program also clarified “the age of imperialism and the character of the Russian Revolution,” and elucidated the characteristics of the world system at the present stage, and the historical conditions of its formation, provided an overview of the socialist movement in Japan and throughout the world, and outlined the basic strategy and tasks of the Marxist Workers League. Our newspaper, hibana, summarized the MWL program:

The particular significance of our program is the following: We have successfully elucidated the characteristic of the postwar world, carried out a materialistic and Marxist analysis of the Soviet bloc for the first time in history and clarified the contradictions of this society [state capitalism], offered a revolutionary criticism of the strategy of the “united front” and “popular front” that has been the strategy of the international communist movement since the death of Lenin, and we revived the revolutionary strategy of Marxism-Leninism.

The program of a proletarian party gives workers a clear understanding of the present-day world and revolutionary movement, and outlines the basic tasks of the socialist movement. This is the basis for the workers to join the movement. The importance of such Marxist programs cannot be overemphasized. The party rules at the same time stood consistently on the principles of democratic centralism, which is the concise expression of the revolutionary organizing principle of Marxism. These organizational principles have been confirmed throughout the history of the socialist movement.

July 1972 thus marked an important turning point in the history of the revolutionary movement in Japan. Of course, despite the great significance of the creation of a revolutionary program, this alone did not prove that its content was truly suitable for a revolutionary party of the proletariat. However, the meaning of our program has been confirmed at every step in the development of the MWL, and we consistently defended the class principles of the proletariat and fought in the revolutionary political struggle.

Over a period or roughly twelve years, MWL candidates participated in Diet elections six times, and we received passionate support from workers throughout the country. We also fought at the forefront of the workers movement, and struggled hard to unite the labor movement with the socialist movement. In 1984 we made another big step forward when we formed the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), with a new program based fundamentally on that of the MWL.

Like the MWL, the SWP fights at the head of the workers in the labor unions and consistently holds fast to Marxism and the socialist standpoint. The party has run ten candidates in the Diet elections in 1986 and in 1989 respectively, carrying out large-scale socialistic propaganda, and succeeded in obtaining more than 150,000 votes.

Despite these successes, the SWP remains a small party. The reason for this, above all, is the amazing development of capitalism in the postwar period, and the fact that Japan has become an economic power in the world and enjoyed relative prosperity. However, since the collapse of the “bubble” economy in 1990, the Japanese capitalist economy has been stagnating for more than a decade, with no end in sight. Other capitalist countries in the world, like Japan, are also facing unprecedented difficulties, and the bourgeoisie is attempting to place the entire burden on the backs of the workers. For these reasons, we are convinced that the age of a monumental working class struggle to overthrow capital and realize socialism is close at hand. Our theoretical and organizational preparations have been made with this goal in sight.