石橋輝勝のホームページ

Copyright 1996 by TERUKATSU ISHIBASHI

Ho230, Yachimata, Yachimata-shi, Chiba-Prefecture, Japan. 289-11

First Printing, July 24, 1996

Stalin : The Origin of Terror

Introduction

This essay is to pursue the origins of Stalin’s terror. Why did Stalin have to use so much terror? Before I deal with this question, it is important to indicate that the word Terror (or Purge ) was not used in the USSR until the Khrushchev era. The impression from this word is so strong that pursuers tend to focus on the content of each incident of terror. This tendency is further underlined by the fact that many books about the Stalin era were written during the Cold War age. I will, therefore, try not to focus overly on individual incidents, but endeavor to concentrate on the fundamental historical currents.

　This essay consists of three chapters and a conclusion. In chapter one, the historical legacy of the USSR, which is considered to be the origin of terror during the Russian Revolution, is described by comparison with the legacy of the Japanese. In chapter two, ideological reasons are given. In chapter three, the world historical currents which were the origin of Stalin’s terror are described with the advent of Hitler．

　There is a psychological approach to the decision-making of leaders, but this approach would make fundamental historical currents vague. I believe that people are brought up by circumstances and are carrying their own history on their back. It is a great man who acts sensitively reflecting circumstances and understands the currents of history. This great man can express the expectations of the majority of people, because he can absorb everything from circumstances with more sensitivity than others. It, therefore, seems in vain to elaborate on the psychological approach.

The Russian Revolution took place under circumstances described by Lenin as “We lack sufficient civilization to enable us to pass straight on to Socialism although we have the political requisites.”1 What was the civilization which Lenin talked about? I think that civilization is a society which has well functioning systems borne by well functioning individuals. This does not seem to fit the meaning of a lack of civilization Lenin referred to when he used the word civilization to describe the following condition: “Nineteenth-century Russia, with its overwhelmingly peasant population and low

level of industrial development, hardly fit the specification for a Marxist-type revolution.”2 This will be obvious if we compare the Russian case with the Japanese. When the Meiji restoration took place about half a century before the Russian Revolution, the majority of Japanese were peasants and an industrial revolution had not taken place. Japan succeeded very rapidly, however, because it had a well functioning society as a state unit which had been built up during the Edo period. At the time of the Russian Revolution, there was no such well functioning society in existence in Russia.

　The consequences of this lack of sufficient civilization were immense for the build-up of the USSR. This is because it seems that this civilization was based on the Russian indigenous education system derived from customs and traditions, not on the modern education system. People behave by traditional customs, not according to what they were taught by modern education. This will also become clear from taking a look at the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Some Japanese scholars explain the present economic development in Japan on the basis of the primitive education system during the Edo period. I disagree with this opinion. Japanese customs and traditions were a more fundamental education than the primitive education system and the modern education system. The fact that orders from the central government in the USSR were not effectively transmitted is often explained by the lack of well developed information and transportation systems. However, the important thing is how to transmit orders correctly. A prerequisite is that society has developed high morals. At the time of the Russian Revolution, there did not exist a society that was well functioning as a state unit and had high morals. This reality caused Stalin many difficulties and motivated him to use terror.

　At the end of this chapter, I will briefly describe the European Bourgeois Revolution to clarify what I said above. The theoretical process according to Marxism would have been for the industrial revolution to take place and a civil class to emerge before the Bourgeois Revolution. The Bourgeois Revolution was carried out to adapt the political system to the real environment. This means that the bourgeois class was conscious enough of the environment in which it existed. This consciousness made the process of revolution smooth. Although the 1905 revolution is said to have been the Bourgeois Revolution in Russia, Russia lacked the environment Europe had. Even just before the 1917 revolution, the situation was that“total membership of the Bolshevik party was generously estimated at 23,600. ”3 23,600 leaders led“over 150,000,000 people.”4 In Japan, it seems that Japanese customs and traditions

created the environment that makes change possible although

she lacked, as did Russia, the kind of legacy Europe had. People carry the legacy of their own history on their back.

The ideology which the Bolsheviks adopted to lead the Russian Revolution was Marxism. According to Marxism, a highly developed capitalist society is divided into two classes, the bourgeoisie

and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie merely exploits the

proletariat. To establish social equality, the proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie by revolution. The Russian Revolution was the first proletarian revolution in the world. The effects were, of course, enormous inside and outside of Russia. Its effects provided the causes of terror.

　Firstly, the Russian Revolution was to attain dictatorship by the proletariat. At the time of the Russian Revolution, the majority of people were peasants however. Moreover, the fact that Soviet leaders adopted Marxism seems to indicate that they understood class struggle to be the substance of society. They did not realize that society should be made up of individuals who are well functioning within a state unit. As a result, they made enemies whom they themselves called anti-revolutionists. This category of anti-revolutionists was very wide, because the Revolution was led by minorities. It was the cause of Civil War and terror.

　Secondly, there was a discrepancy between theoretical expectations and real expectations in the Russian Revolution.

The theoretical expectations are mentioned above. The real expectations are described as “the Bolshevik Revolution came to me as an absolute solution of all problems of poverty, inequality and injustice.”5 This statement is another clear indication of the lack of environment for the Bourgeois Revolution as a stage preceding the Proletarian Revolution that I mentioned in the first chapter. It also well expresses what people expected of the Revolution. When Stalin thought about how to respond to people’s expectations, he encountered another predictable problem. Though the Bourgeoisie exploits the Proletariat, the total extent of exploitation would be small as long as the Bourgeoisie was underdeveloped. Even if the Soviet government distributed everything equally, how much could each person get? It would still be little. This was the problem Stalin faced. He, therefore, set a very high rate of development in the First Five-Year Plan. The situation at that time is well described in this quotation: “Those were the years of our heavy purchases of foreign machinery and materials for the gigantic drive to industrialize Russia.”6“It was Stalin who thus put into circulation throughout the world about ten million dollars in bogus American currency.”7 As Stalin experienced these difficulties, he turned more drastic although the First Five Year Plan seemed to be successful. At this moment, the differences of opinion as to the economic plan caused terror.

　Thirdly, the one-party system produced terror. As I described above, there were thousands of problems. Theoretically, however, there should have been fewer problems than in capitalist countries. How to cope with this contradiction in the one-party system? There must have been as many different opinions as there were problems. But the USSR had to pretend being a monolithic country. This made the power struggle existing everywhere in the world more serious. In the USSR, it seems no exaggeration to say, there was no place to exist against the rules. The following describes the operations of the Ogpu, a secret police organization: “It is not unusual for an Ogpu agent to reprimand a ranking official of the Comintern for violation of these rules.”8“Especially the hunting down and reporting to Moscow of cases of heresy against Stalin.”9

It is also important to know the movements outside of the

USSR. The time of foundation of the USSR was the final stage of colonialism by force and a time when imperialism, a style of colonialism practiced by new members, Germany and Japan,

grew rapidly. Historically, it was an era of war economy when

the development of industry amplified an explosion of army

power. These were the historical world currents Stalin faced.

　Under these circumstances, it seems that the existence of Germany was the toughest problem for the USSR. The decisions of the USSR from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk by Lenin in 1918 to the Stalin-Hitler pact by Stalin in 1939 are noteworthy. On the one hand, Stalin used his political power to execute “Marshal Tukhachevsky and nearly the entire high command of the Red Army”10“as

spies of Hitler and the Gestapo”11 in 1937. On the other hand,

he elaborated to form a close relationship with Germany. Stalin proclaimed at the 17th Party Congress that “of course, we are far from enthusiastic about the Fascist regime in Germany. But

Fascism is beside the point, if only because Fascism in Italy, for example, has not kept the USSR from establishing the best of relations with that country.”12 This is a very interesting point. Stalin recognized Fascism for what it was, but never changed his policy in spite of Hitler’s communist purges only half a year later. These events cannot be understood if one ignores the historical currents and the advent of Hitler in 1933. Moreover, Stalin had to consider Japan, another aggressive imperialist country in the

Far East.

　During the 1930s, Stalin struggled against both imperial Germany in the west and Japan in the east, while he fought internal opponents like anti-revolutionists and spies of outside countries. As a result, Stalin recognized Fascism as a real threat, and concluded the Stalin-Hitler pact with Germany and the Soviet-Japanese nonagression

pact with Japan. At the same time, however, Stalin prepared for war by establishment of a dictatorship and the use of terror.

As I mentioned in the introduction, the series of terror was referred to by different names.“The 1919 operation was called pereregistratsiia, reregistration.”13“The 1921 purge, and each subsequent purge, was called proverka (verification) or chistka

(a cleaning, cleaning out, combing out, or sweeping).”14 I have given the reasons Stalin had to use terror as follows. The legacy which Stalin inherited from the former regime by the Russian Revolution was not a society which was well functioning as a state unit with sufficiently high morals. Moreover, the ideology which the Russian leaders adopted was not suitable for the Russian situation and had a tendency to make enemies in itself. Furthermore, the historical world current was approaching the last stage of colonialism by force and two imperialist countries were emerging both east and west of the USSR. As the contradictions in the USSR and the pressures from outside increased, Stalin was faced with the advent of Hitler. The influential power of Hitler forged Stalin as a “Man of Steel.”15 When the “Man of Steel” sufficiently realized the crisis the USSR was in, he applied his total political power

toward the preparation of war. At this time, the people who were forced out from Stalin’s course became the victims of terror.

　There is a difference between terror in the 1920s and the 1930s. Incidents of terror in the 1920s were relatively moderate, but in the 1930s they were very severe. One cannot but attribute this difference to the advent of Hitler.

　It seems that Hitler was a leader who moved with the stream, while Stalin was a leader who faced the stream. Which kind of leaders will we have in the future? If we go by the current of history up to now, we will be faced with both types. It seems that we need　to stop this current.

ENDNOTES

1 Robert Conquest,“The Great Terror,”p.4.

2 David L Sills (Editor),“International Encyclopedia of the Social 　

     Sciences,”Volume 3, p.103.

3 David L sills, ibid, p.105.

4 David L sills, ibid, p.105.

5 W.G.Krivitsky,“I was Stalin’s agent,”p.8．

6 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.135.

7 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.135.

8 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.68.

9 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.69.

10 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.233.

11 W.G.Krivitsky, ibid, p.234.

12 The 17th Party Congress.

13 J.Arch Getty,“Origin of the Great Purge,”p.40.

14 J.Arch Getty, ibid, p.40.

15 Jules Archer,“Man of Steel.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

David L Sills ( Editor ).“International Encyclopedia of the social

                             sciences,”Volume 3, p.102-111, by Merle Fainsod,

　　　　　　　Macmillan and Free Press, 1968.

J.Arch Getty.“Origins of the Great Terror,”Cambridge University        

                             Press,1985.

Jules Archer.“Man of Steel,”Bailey Brothers and Swinfen

                             Limited, 1974.

Robert Conquest.“The Great Terror,”Macmillan, 1968.

W.G.Krivitsky.“I was Stalin’s agent,”Haimish Hamilton, 1939.

（This essay was submitted to Nottingham University on December  

12, 1990.）

Copyright 1996 by TERUKATSU ISHIBASHI

Ho230, Yachimata, Yachimata-shi, Chiba-Prefecture, Japan. 289-11

First Printing, July 24, 1996

The Significance of “The Rise and Fall

of the Great Powers”

Introduction

This essay attempts to evaluate the significance of “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”1 by Paul Kennedy. To determine the significance of this book, it is important to understand the current world situation and the kinds of problems contemporary man faces. The value of this book should be assessed based on these considerations.

　This essay is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the problems of contemporary man are described against their historical background. The chapter is divided into two parts. One deals with human conduct. The intenseness of human conduct is explained. It is very important to understand ourselves without separating ourselves from reality. The other part deals with emancipation from suppression. It refers to the process by which man has freed himself from restrictions. The second chapter describes what determines the direction of man’s behavior. It is also divided into two parts. One is about customs and traditions that have come down to us through history. The other part is about modern education systems and their suitability in the context of the present world. The third chapter is a conclusion. In this chapter, the value of “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” is determined.

The problems that contemporary man has been facing are the product of his own conduct. For example, the pollution problem and abnormal weather have been caused by man’s way of life. Once mankind had learned to use fire, there arose a need for fuel to cook food and to keep warm. In Africa, there still are people who use wood as fuel. With growing populations, more fuel is needed. One Japanese reporter published a book which introduced famines in Africa. He described the situation as follows. “In one place,

it takes three to four hours to get firewood because people have cut down all trees around their shelters. They also rear livestock for food. The livestock eats all grass around their shelters. Some

people examined whether this phenomenon of desertification

was caused merely by weather or not. They enclosed one area by fence to keep out people and livestock. Surprisingly, this area revived after three years. However, the rest of the area remained unchanged, although the weather was the same.”2 How intense is the conduct of mankind ! It should be kept in mind that even this kind of primitive life exerts a massive influence on the environment.

　But environmental problems are not only caused by people in developing countries but the more so by those in the developed countries. I believe, no more needs to be said on this subject, as the media have been keeping us informed over the past couple of years. Lifestyles in developed countries do not make good models

for the people in developing countries. The conduct which

caused environmental problems is common to all human beings. Politics up to now have been based on this kind of human conduct.                       　

On the one hand, the history of mankind has given rise to environmental problems as I mentioned above. On the other hand, history has been an intense race to secure fundamental human rights. Since before Christ, many philosophers have thought about city-states, moral, ethics, democracy, political systems, and so on. Nowadays, it is thought that the people are the masters of the state. The opinions of the majority have been reflected in societies. People have established their political rights in their legal systems.

　As a consequence of the triumph over political suppression, people attain fundamental rights including political freedom and equality. With the current of time, political freedom and equality have penetrated man’s way of life. These days, freedom and equality are used not only in the political context, but have also made their way into our daily lives.

　The emergence of the great masses that have freedom and equality even in their daily lives has given rise to new feelings of lack of freedom and equality. This is because the usage of freedom and equality has very materialistic aspects. As long as contemporary man lives within the limits of this earth and uses limited resources, he will inevitably experience a lack of freedom and equality.

　Though man’s conduct is very intense, with the establishment of human rights he has been under fewer restrictions than ever before. Political freedom and equality have saturated man’s way of life. But freedom and equality are interpreted mainly from materialistic aspects and not their spiritual meaning to mankind.

As we have seen in chapter one, the effect of human conduct is immense. The number of people who produce this effect has increased. And societies have changed from primitive to industrialized societies. Industrialized societies waste much more energy than primitive ones do. As we can realize from the above, it is no exaggeration to say that the future of the world will depend on the individual’s lifestyle.

　The direction of lifestyles used to be determined by customs and traditions. Nowadays, people tend to dislike both. However, customs and traditions come down to us through history, and some of them, therefore, are still very rational even today. By rational the following is meant. In the Edo period in Japan, public baths were very common. Although they owed their existence mainly to a lack of baths in private homes, it is true that they contributed to sanitation, relaxation, sexual education, energy saving, and so on. There

is a still better example. This is Japanese agriculture. Agriculture as practiced by our ancestors was organic agriculture. It

followed the cycle of nature. It is said Japanese fields were very beautiful before farmers began to adopt modern scientific agriculture. Here beauty means to be in step with nature.

Traditional Japanese agriculture was in step with nature.

On the other hand, the modern scientific agriculture which has been developed in the U.S.A. has devastated farmlands. As a result, Americans developed ecological science. People usually realize the value of something once they have lost it. Everybody knows that Japanese rice is 6 times as expensive as American, but few are aware of the quality of this rice. It is wrong to compare agricultural products by price alone．

　There is another reason why customs and traditions are so important. That is, man seems to be driven more by customs and traditions in his actions than by education. Some attribute Japanese economic success to the modern education system. But, this explanation does not seem to be correct. I think it is the other way around. What the Japanese had established has been the basis of success of the modern education system. This basis, I presume, had been created by the time of the Meiji Restoration.

　What I am pursuing is not to waste more energy by achieving the well“functioning society as a state unit,”3 but to waste less energy by getting in step with nature. The reason I refer to the Edo period in Japan is that this period provides a lot of examples of both the“well functioning society as a state unit”4 and a culture that was in step with nature.

　Although scientific and technological progress have led to the misconception that scientific knowledge is superior to customs and traditions, in one aspect, customs and traditions are superior to present scientific knowledge. Customs and traditions cannot be ignored because they are directly linked with human behavior.

Another factor determining lifestyle is the modern education system. The modern education system was introduced as an alternative to the traditional one. It is said to be based on modern science. The traditional education system was based on customs and traditions which have come down to us through history. The two systems are, therefore, fundamentally different. The modern education system has been making people believe that human history is the history of development and that the traditional education system is worth less because it is not based on modern science. The modern education system has made it hard to persuade people without scientific explanations. Moreover, there has emerged a new educational hierarchy with high level science placed at the top. This hierarchy has produced a direction of respect from top to bottom.

　What people are taught by higher education is to trace historical scientific legacy and to accumulate others without questioning.

What do we have to trace historical legacy? There are massive legacies in historical records. Regarding ideologies, it seems that their origin and justification are to be found in suppression. Suppression has taken place for different reasons such as tyranny, dictatorship, feudalism, imperialism, and so on. If these motives were correct, they are far removed from pointing the direction to an ideal way of life．

Nowadays, mankind which has fought against political suppression has been facing other problems produced and accumulated by

man’s way of life. As these problems are caused by mankind as a whole, they could be resolved by establishing ways and means to obtain the cooperation of all mankind. However, contemporary

man’s apparatuses, an inclination to neglect customs traditions, and

the modern education system do not lead in this direction.

　Let us here remember the intenseness of mankind again. Imagine right now that you, yourself, are devouring your booty in the field ! This is the real picture of mankind. A mankind that has been emancipated from various forms of suppression has attained fundamental human rights. But people have introduced

political freedom and equality even in their way of life. They

also pay less attention to customs and traditions. Besides,

it seems that the modern education system has led people

in the wrong direction. Therefore, the world is a barbarous place today without reasonable restrictions.

　It seems that contemporary man is standing at a turning point.

It is whether we go the way of“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers” or pursue the great harmony in the world. If a country were to chose the former way, two things would be essential. One would be a justification to make it easy for this state to manage the world. The other, military power accompanied by economic power. This is well described in“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.” However, this would not resolve current worldwide problems: pollution, population growth, the North-South problem, and so on. This rule by hegemony would make many currents. It tends to

avoid a relative theory. It resorts to arms to attain its goals. What country would choose this way in spite of the decline of the U.S.A. with all of its resources ?

　The latter way seems to be worth considering as an alternative. However, as I mentioned above, it is no exaggeration to say that nothing has been established so far. Now the great creation is about to begin. When people think about this, it would be useful to make a detour to a world with a different set of values. In this case, Japan, especially the Edo period, might be a good example. This is because Japan was a closed country for more than 200 years and had a“well functioning society as a state unit”5 with hardly any influence from Europe. She was very Asiatic and had achieved an unique culture that harmonized with nature. One problem is that a country will build up a military power when it becomes rich. Harmony with nature must, therefore, be paired with a“well functioning society as a state unit.”6

　Lastly, the value of“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”is determined by how one reads this book. I read it as the grand

total of history. And, we need to reconsider this history. It may have been useful to examine political behavior in the past, but I

hope it will not be useful in the future.

ENDNOTES

1 Paul Kennedy,“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.”

2 Hiroyuki Ishi,“Chikyu-Seitaikei no kiki,”p.22,p.127.

3 Terukatsu Ishibashi,“Stalin: The origin of terror,”p.9.

4 Terukatsu Ishibashi, ibid.

5 Terukatsu Ishibashi, ibid.

6 Terukatsu Ishibashi, ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Paul Kennedy.“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,”

　　　　　　　   p. xv-xxviii, Fontana Press, 5th imp, Feb. 1990.

Hiroyuki Ishi.“Chikyu-Seitaikei no Kiki (The Global Ecological 　

　　　　　　　 Crisis),”Chikuma Shobo Publishing Co.,Ltd,

　　　　　　　 Oct. 30, 1987.

Terukatsu Ishibashi.“Stalin: The Origin of Terror,”Dec. 12, 1990.

（This essay was submitted to Nottingham University on December 　　

27, 1990.）

Copyright 1996 by TERUKATSU ISHIBASHI

Ho230, Yachimata, Yachimata-shi, Chiba-Prefecture, Japan. 289-11

First Printing, July 24, 1996

Can the Japanese are able to transform their economic drive into a higher political and security profile in international affairs?

Introduction

Japan recovered rapidly after World War II and attained significant economic power. In political aspects, especially in international politics, the world is still managed by the U.S.A. With the economic decline of the U.S.A., demands and criticism have been voiced that Japan should assume duties not only in the economical world but also in the political world. These proposals seem to be demands and criticism rather than expectations.

　Before Japan involves itself more deeply in international politics, it seems to be necessary to reexamine Japanese traditional politics and thinking, especially from the Japanese point of view. The Japanese seem to have evaluated their traditional politics and thoughts based on European views as they began to place less importance on their own culture, especially after World War II. Many Japanese thought that Japanese ways were facing a deadlock and had little universality.

　Times have changed. Contemporary man faces various kinds of problems which have their origin in the adoption of U.S. or European ways. As the Japanese way is fundamentally different, it might provide hints on rethinking the current of the present world. We, Japanese, also need to know our own ways to understand ourselves and make future contributions in international affairs.

　This essay is divided into three chapters and a conclusion. In the first chapter, the Japanese character is depicted in comparison with the U.S.A. The second chapter contrasts the Japanese character with European and Chinese thought which have influenced Japan. In the third chapter, the uniqueness of Japanese politics and decision-making is described by quoting from“Higurashisuzuri.”

Some foreigners who visited Japan have felt that Japan looked like a communist country. They might also expect the Japanese to have their own principles, because the Japanese living on all the small islands behave in almost the same way. If a foreigner would ask any Japanese what the principles of the Japanese are, no one would be able to answer. This may raise doubts among foreigners that the Japanese are hiding their principles. This doubt may be promoted by silence and an affable laugh on the part of the Japanese.

　Some English exercises I took with American teachers provided me with a hint about the Japanese character. One teacher asked us what the Japanese character was. I answered Japan had a long history. The teacher said China, Egypt and Mesopotamia had longer histories. Correct. I answered next that Japan consisted of islands. So does England, said the teacher. Correct. Nobody answered this question. I asked the teacher what the character of the U.S.A. was. She immediately answered that it was democracy, freedom and equality. I asked other teachers the same question. They gave me the same answer without any hesitation.

　This story seems to indicate something about both the Japanese and the American character. Why can Americans answer so easily ? Why cannot Japanese?

　When Americans insist on democracy, freedom and equality,

they do not seem to have any doubt that this is the correct way.

It seems that Americans believe in actions that are based

on human intelligence. Action, however, produces reaction. Does’t the insistence on democracy, freedom and equality produce antidemocracy, antifreedom and inequality?

　When I was a university student, my finance teacher, Dr. Aoki, taught us about the issue of national bonds: “When the issue of national bonds is decided, the procedure follows the rules of democracy. The term of repayment of long term bonds is 25 or 30 years. This means that the last part of the debt might have to be paid by the next generation. The next generation has not had a part in deciding the issue of national bonds. This is undemocratic for the next generation.” The U.S. government has issued massive national bonds to make the present generation happy． But will their children be happy in the future?

　Man needs clothes, food and shelter. Man has to produce these. I am not sure how many clothes, how much food and how many shelters contemporary man needs. I am also not sure how much work people today need to keep them comfortable. Although development of technology seems to have shortened working hours, it has created other problems that make people waste time. Total work may not have been reduced. To gain more freedom, Americans have to give up something else. It is easy to understand this point looking at the present situation in the U.S.A. There are people who say that Japanese work too much and export too much. However, we may say that the Japanese from the leader to the led recognize that they have to work hard to survive in the given domestic and international situation. Americans seem to lack this recognition from top to bottom because they enjoy too much freedom, even though they are the leaders of the world. Obviously, Japan bashing has made the Japanese work even harder.

　All men are dependent, because they no longer produce all they need. Although everyone needs everyone else to survive, not everyone enjoys equal respect. This is especially true in the U.S.A. where the social and industrial structures provide for far less equality of respect than in Japan.

　For Japanese, it seems to be very difficult to attach importance to action as Americans do. Japanese rather tend to attach importance to reaction. But, it is impossible to predict what the reaction will be. This may be the reason Japanese cannot express their character as Americans do.

Europeans have pursued utopia. What is utopia for the Japanese? Do we have a utopia? From what I have described in chapter 1, it seems to be impossible for the Japanese to have a utopia. This is because we attach importance to reactions that cannot be predicted.

　In Buddhism, there is the term Jyodo which resembles Eden in Christianity. Except for this Jyodo, the Japanese do not seem to have fabricated utopian theories as Europeans have done. Why does this difference exist? I think, it is a matter of whether people believe in the wisdom of humanity or not.

　Europeans seem to have formed their thought relying on human intelligence. In this, they have acted in the belief that people would attain more happiness if they went along with this thinking. This belief has given birth to the theory of development. Europeans have thought that man undergoes constant development.

　As a Japanese and Asian, I cannot agree with the theory of development. If every theory were to attain truth, one would not need to trace the sequence of theories. One must be able to reach truth by tackling each theory. We, Japanese, seem to have had a very different approach to gaining understanding. Chuang-Tzu, a Chinese philosopher who lived about 2,300 years ago, tells the following story:

As Chuang-Tzu said above, the way is everywhere. The way seems to be easier to attain by observation of nature than by pursuing theories. But it is very unclear what the great achievement is. Only one who has attained the true realization knows. It is also difficult for later generations to realize.

　The Japanese have a strong tendency to pursue the way. This tendency has made the Japanese very serious in every field. It is this character of the Japanese that makes them pursue satisfaction spiritually in existing society, instead of being satisfied with changing society to a utopia.

A good example sometimes quoted to describe Japanese politics or Japanese decision-making is“Higurashisuzuri(日暮硯）.”

“Higurashisuzuri”is a story about the restoration of the Matsushiro-Han’s finances in the middle of the Edo period. I will try to summarize it as follows:

What Onda did was firstly to get cooperation from everybody to achieve his great task. His power of observation was excellent. He understood the problems the people had and how to get everybody to cooperate in resolving these problems. The above shows that the Japanese political character is management by everybody, not only by the leaders. This character in its extreme might result in people   not knowing who their leader is or what politics is. Society would function well borne by the efforts of people themselves. This is the reason why the Japanese have not had a single strong leader.

　There is another interesting phrase although I omitted it in the above summary: “We did it reluctantly as our duty.（詮方なさの御奉公なり｡)”3 In the Edo period under the Tokugawa Shogunate, Japan was divided into many small Han. The Matsushiro-Han had subjected people to unreasonable demands. However, it was impossible for the Matsushiro-Han alone to rectify these unreasonable demands, because these problems had been produced by a huge current. We did not have enough power to go against this stream. We did subject people to unreasonable demands, but now please compromise with us. This is how I understand this phrase. The Japanese tend not to question the right or wrong in the massive stream. This character seems to be derived from Japan’s own culture.

As I have described in these three chapters, the Japanese character is unique. Although this character has been influenced by Buddhism and Chinese philosophy, its uniqueness still remains, especially in Japanese politics and Japanese decision-making. It is impossible to understand the present situation, the fertile farmlands or the mutual concessions between employers and employees, without exploring the historical mutual concessions between rulers and subjects. These mutual concessions seem to have made societies function very well. It seems to be an effective way to manage the state.

　This leads to the question whether these character traits of the Japanese can work effectively in international affairs ? The Japanese who attach importance to reaction would not be able to clearly express their opinion, because it is not clear what the reaction will be. Japanese who prefer to be satisfied spiritually to changing society would not be able to lead the world which has been led by European and American thought. Moreover, in Japanese politics in the extreme, the leader disappears among his well functioning people. If such a man went to an international conference, he could not do anything. Now, I can say with confidence that Japanese have not prepared the way to cope with international affairs.

　There are two ways in the future. One is internationalization according to the U.S. and European models. However, it seems to be correct to say that some countries have used this internationalization the wrong way as the U.S.A. has used international conferences to restore her own domestic problems by calling for world security. This kind of behavior has made international discussion so difficult. Does the move toward internationalization resolve the present problems?

　The other way is toward an era of individual states. I have felt that each state, at last, might have a chance to attain its own great achievements without being subject to so many anxieties from the outside world. If the world would move in this direction, the demands and criticism regarding Japanese participation in international affairs would change to expectations, because Japanese have amassed plenty of knowledge to manage a state.

　It has become very difficult to know Japan, because there is a deluge of incorrect information about Japan. There seem to be groups which do not want Japan to advance. This has been obvious from experiences I had last year. I would like to encourage the sincere learners about Japan to see and to think with their own eyes and brains.

ENDNOTES

1 Mitsuji Fukunaga,“Chuang-Tzu,”p.134-135.

2 Isaiah BenDasan, “Nihonjin to Yudayajin(Japanese and Jew),”

　　　　　　　　　     p.59-74.

3 Isaiah BenDasan, ibid, p.64.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Isaiah BenDasan. “Nihonjin to Yudayajin (Japanese and Jew),”

　　　　　　　　     Yamamoto-Shoten, 1971.

Nobuharu Aoki.   “Shin-Gendai-Zaiseiron (New Finance Theories),”                

　　　　　　　　   Nippon-Hyoron-Sya, Inc, 1975.

Mitsuji Fukunaga.“Chuang-Tzu, ”Chuokoron-Sha, Inc, 1989.

（This essay was submitted to Nottingham University on February 1,  

1991.）