No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Nishio Suehiro and the Japanese Social Democratic Movement, 1920–1940
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 March 2011
Extract
Social reformers must often make difficult political decisions as they define an ideology of change, and the strategies and tactics to be implemented on its behalf. As Peter Gay observes, “A democratic Socialist movement that attempts to transform a capitalist into a Socialist order is necessarily faced with the choice between two incompatibles—principles and power.” An emphasis on the purity of principles may help to sustain the identity of the movement. But it may also expose the movement to repression by governments that have as their policy the control of dissent, and insistence on society's conformity to the central value system they seek to protect. On the other hand, accommodation with the established order—however justifiable it may be as a means of working for social change from within the existing institutions of society—runs the risk of exposing reform movements to the danger of cooptation and absorption by that order, particularly if the reform movements are weak to begin with or if the pressures upon them to sacrifice their principles for the national good become irresistible.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1976
References
1 The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to Marx (New York, 1952), p. ix.
2 See Totten, George, The Social Democratic Movement in Prewar Japan (New Haven, 1966)Google Scholar [hereafter SDM], ch. 5–7, for a discussion of the main cliques in the Japanese social democratic movement. Totten translates Shaminkei as ‘Socio-Democratic clique' in reference to persons associated with the founding of the Shakai Minshuto (see p. 62). The other cliques were the Nichirokei—the “Japan-Labor clique, “men who participated in the Nihcon. Kōnotō (Japan Labor-Farmer Party)—and the Ronōha, the “Labor-Farmer” faction comprising the legal left.
3 The intellectuals are discussed in ibid., ch. 5.
4 Boss, literally ‘parent person’ in relation to ko-kata (followers, ‘child persons’).
5 Biographical materials on Nishio are available in his book, Taishū to tomo ni (Tokyo, 1971) [hereafter TT]. For an account of the Dōshikai, see my The Rise of Labor in Japan: The Yūaikai, 1912–1911) (Tokyo, 1972), pp. 108–09.
6 Matsuoka's rise in the Yūaikai—Japan's strong. est national labor organization in the World War I period—is discussed in my book (n. 5 above) and in Kikuo, Nakamura, Matsuoka Komakichi den (Tokyo, 1964)Google Scholar.
7 Watanabe, “1918 nen yori 21 nen ni itaru rōd¯ undō shisō no sui-i “in Inoue Kiyoshi (ed.), Taishōki no seiji to shakai (Tokyo, 1969), pp. 205–50.
8 For a study of anarchist positions, see Bradford Simcock, “The Anarcho-Syndicalist Thought and Action of Ōsugi Sakae,” Papers on japan (Harvard) [hereafter PJ], V, 1970, pp. 31–54.
9 Sōdōmei gojūnen shi kankō i-inkai (eds.) [hereafter SGSKI], Sōdōmei gojūnen shi [hereafter SGS). I (Tokyo, 1965), p. 483.
10 Ibid., pp. 494–97.
11 Ibid., pp. 492–93.
12 The formation of the party is discussed by Beckmann, George & Genji, Okubo, The Japanese Communist Party, 1922–1943 (Stanford, 1969)Google Scholar, ch. 2.
13 The article appeared in the Jul-Aug issue of Zen'ei.
14 SGSKI, Kanemasa Yonekichi tsuisōroku (Tokyo, 1969), pp. 87–88. Cf. Nishio, TT, pp. 160–65, for his account of these contacts.
15 A vivid description of party tribulations, including the Kameido incident, in which several Communist workers were killed, is presented in Nobuyuki, Tsunekawa, Nihon Kyōsanto to Watanabe Masanosuke (Tokyo, 1971)Google Scholar.
16 Iwao, Ayusawa, A History of Labor in Modern Japan (Honolulu, 1966), pp. 129–32Google Scholar.
17 Akamatsu's realist socialist thought is expressed in the following of his books: Shakai undō ni okeru genjitsushugi (Tokyo, 1928), Kaihō undo no shidō riron (Tokyo, 1929), and Shakai minshushugi no hata no moto ni (Tokyo, 1930).
18 For an English translation of parts of the resolutions, see Lu, David. Sources of Japanese History, vol. II (New York, 1974), pp. 113–14Google Scholar.
19 Etsuji, Sumiya et al. (eds.), Shōwa no hantaisei shisō (Tokyo, 1967) [hereafter SHS], pp. 166–71Google Scholar.
20 The Communist initiative in the Sōdōmei and the events leading to the 1925 labor split are too complex for elaboration here; for pro-Sōdōmei accounts, see SGS, I, pp. 689–756 and Nishio, TT, ch. 7. For a Communist analysis, see Zentarō, Taniguchi, Nihon Rōdō Kumiai Hyōgikai shi, I (Tokyo, 1948)Google Scholar and Ritsuta, Noda, Hyōgikai tōsō shi (Tokyo, 1931)Google Scholar. Another useful source on the split is “Sōdōmei dai-ichiji bunretsu o megutte—zandankai,” Rōdō undō shi kenkyō, Jan 1963, pp. 40–48.
21 Nishio, TT, pp. 198–200.
22 Ibid., p. 192.
23 SGS, I, p. 716; and Nishio, TT, pp. 205–06.
24 Kanemasa (n. 14 above), pp. 93–97.
25 Kyōchōkai (ed.), Saikin no shakai undō (Tokyo, 1929), p. 231.
26 For discussion of problems facing the labor movement, see Kazuo, Ōkōchi, “Traditionalism of Industrial Relations in Japan,” in The Changing Patterns of Industrial Relations: Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Relations (Tokyo, 1965), pp. 126–41Google Scholar. Also see Koji, Taira, Economic Development and the Labor Market in Japan (New York, 1970), pp. 143–64Google Scholar.
27 There were four main labor groups in the Sodomei bloc besides the Sōdōmei: Kangyo Rodo Sōdōmei (General Federation of Labor in Government Enterprises), Kaigun Rōdō Renmei (Naval Labor League), Nihon Kaiin Kyōkai (Japan Mari-time Officers' Association), and Nihon Kaiin Kumiai (Japan Seamen's Union). Including the 39,000 members of the Sōdōmei, by 1928 the combined strength of the bloc was about 188,595–81,534 of of whom were in the Nihon Kaiin Kumiai. Totten, SDM, pp. 319–21.
28 The Hyōgikai lost many unions in its strikes and was forced to tone down its militance in 1927. See Nishio Suehiro, “Hyōgikai no shin hōkō tenkan to kono eikyō,” Rōdō (Aug 1927), pp. 4–5. For a study of the Noda strike, see Totten, G., “Japanese Industrial Relations at the Crossroads: The Great Noda strike of 1927–1928,” in Harootunian, H. & Silberman, B. (eds.), Japan in Crisis (Princeton, 1974), pp. 398–436Google Scholar.
29 Nishio gives a good account of the negotiations, TT, pp. 218–40. Also see Jōtarō, Kawakami et al. (eds.), Asō Hisashi den (Tokyo, 1958) [hereafter AHD], pp. 262–81Google Scholar.
30 Nakamura Katsunori, “Shakai Minshūtō no sōritsu,” Hōgaku kenkyū [hereafter HK], Oct 1970, pp. 101–17.
31 The party's programs are critically discussed in SHS, pp. 157–66 and Nakamura Katsunori, “Shakai Minshūtō no seishin,” HK, Feb 1971, pp. 37–53. Also see Na'kamura's “Shakai Minshūtō no dai-ichi nen,” HK, June 1971, pp. 1–19.
32 AHD, pp. 271–72.
33 The arrests were justified by the government under the terms of the 1925 Peace Preservation Law. See The JCP (n. 12 above).
34 Mototaka, Nakamura (ed.), Nihon Kōgyō Kurabu nijū gonen shi, I (Tokyo, 1943), pp. 736–37Google Scholar. Business opinion on the labor movement is the subject of Marshall, Byron, Capitalism and Nationalism in Prewar Japan (Stanford, 1967)Google Scholar.
35 Nishio, TT, pp. 271–75. Nakamura (n. 34 above), pp. 689–735, discusses Zensanren efforts to defeat the bill.
36 “Matsuoka Komakichi,” Nihon minshu shimbun, 15 Aug 1932, p. 2.
37 Nishio's defeat in the Osaka third district party was due to competition from Ōya Shōzō, who had left the Sōdōmei for the Rodo Kumiai Dōmei and the centrist camp after a labor split in the Sōdōmei's Osaka organization in 1929. See Nishio, TT, pp. 280–82.
38 Tetsu, Katayama, Kaiko to tembō (Tokyo, 1967), pp. 180–81Google Scholar. For contemporary accounts of Akamatsu's defection, see “Shakai Minshūtō bun-retsu no kiki,” Nihon minsbū sbimbun, 15 Apr 1932, p. 2; also “Shakai minshūtō no bunretsu to Rōdō Sodomei no taido,” Rodo, May 1932, pp. 2–3.
39 Shirai Taishirō, “Senzen ni okeru rōdō kumiai-shugi no hyōka ni tsuite,” Nihon rōdō kyōkai zasshi, Feb 1961, pp. 23–24.
40 The groups in the Congress are listed in SGS, II (Tokyo, 1967), pp. 482–83. See Shirai (n. 39 above) for a history of the Congress.
41 The formation and history of the party are discussed in Ono Setsuko et al., Musan seitō no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1969), chs. 1 and 6.
42 For information on the merger, see SGS, II, pp. 520–35. Also “Sōdōmei-Zenrō no gōdō mondai no keika,” Rōdō, Dec 1935, pp. 4–5.
43 Hamada Kunitarō, head of thejapan Seamen's Union, was president of the Kumiai Kaigi.
44 Katayama Tetsu originated the “Three Amis” slogan in the Shakai Minshūtō in 1932. Totten, SDM, p. 73.
45 This summary of Asō's thought is based on William Wray, “Asō Hisashi and the Search for Renovation in the 1930s, “PJ, V, 1970, pp. 55–95; also see AHD.
46 Nishio, TT, pp. 311–12.
47 Partly because of this resistance, the merger did not take place. Ibid., pp. 333–34.
48 SGS II, pp. 238–45; and Totten, G. “Collective Bargaining and Works Councils as Innovations in Industrial Relations in Japan During the 1920s,” in Dore, R. (ed.), Aspects of Social Change in Modern Japan (Princeton, 1967), pp. 203–43Google Scholar.
49 Rōdō, July 1932, p. 6; quoted from Totten, SDM, p. 259.
50 Nishio, TT, p. 289; also see “Sangyō kyōryoku undō no igi',” Rōdō, Nov 1933, pp. 2–3.
51 Totten offers a general survey of social demo-cratic responses to imperialism in the thirties; see SDM, ch. 10.
62 SGS II, p. 620.
63 Ibid.
54 Nishio, TT, p. 315.
56 SGS II, pp. 622–38.
56 Nishio, TT, pp. 315–17.
57 Ibid., pp. 318–24. Also see Katayama (n. 38 above), pp. 190–91.
58 SGS II, p. 663. Sampō is discussed in Kitamura Saburō, “Service-to-the-Nation-Through-Industry Movement in Japan,” translated from Genchi hō-koku in Contemporary Opinion on Current Topics, Tokyo Information Bureau, Jan-Jun 1940, 333, pp. 10–12.
59 Nishio, TT, pp. 335–36.
60 Ibid., pp. 336–37.
61 The reorganization occurred in November 1939. SGS II, pp. 670–80.
62 Nishio and Matsuoka visited the Home Ministry on several occasions in early 1940. They were not specifically ordered by Home Ministry officials to disband the Sōdōmei. But it was strongly pointed out to them that as long as the Sodomei resisted sampo it was acting disloyally to the national inter- est. See Nishio, TT, pp. 339–40 and Nakamura (n. 6 above), pp. 267–70.
63 At the time of dissolution (8 July 1940) the Sōdōmei had less than 20,000 members. Soon after this, the government organized all of the sampō units into the Dai Nihon Sangyō Hōkokukai (Greater Japan Industrial Patriotic Association); it, and the new Taisei Yokusankai (Imperial Rule Assistance Association), were the two pillars of the new order.
64 Nishio, TT, p. 230.
65 Ishida, “The Development of Interest Groups and the Pattern of Political Modernization in Japan,” in R. Ward (ed.), Political Development in Modern Japan (Princeton, 1968), p. 297.
66 The fate of Katō's Nihon Musantō (Japan Proletarian Party), organized in 1937, and its supporting labor group, the Nihon Rōdō Kumiai Zenkoku Hyōgikai (National Council ofJapanese Labor Unions), is discussed in Totten, SDM, pp. 97–101.
67 This discussion of the German movement is based on several sources: Hunt, Richard, German Social Democracy, 1918–1933 (New Haven, 1964)Google Scholar; Lichtheim, George, A Short History of Socialism (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Sturmthal, Adolph, The Tragedy of European Labour, 191–1939 (London, 1944)Google Scholar; and Eyck, Erich, A History of the Weimar Republic (New York, 1963)Google Scholar. For material on Ebert's career, see Schorske, Carl, German Social Democracy, 1905–1977 (Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar.
68 Hunt, p. 254.
69 See the books cited in note 67.
70 Hunt, p. 178. Labor's influence on the party is also discussed in Marks, Harry, “The Sources of Reformism in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, 1890–1914,” Journal of Modern History, III (Sept 1939), pp. 334–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71 Mitchell, Harvey & Stearns, Peter, Workers and Protest: The European Labor Movement, The Working Classes, and The Origins of Social Democracy, 1890–1914 (Itasca, 111., 1971), p. 223Google Scholar.
72 Ibid., p. 201.
73 Ibid., pp. 222–35.
74 Sturmthal (n. 67 above), p. 53.
75 This is the theme of Sturmthal's book, which relates labor history to broad political and social developments in Europe.
76 The phrase is taken from Robert Cole's article, “The Theory of Industrialization: Permanent Employment and Tradition in Japan,” Economic Developtnent and Cultural Change, XX, I (1971), p. 70.
77 Quoted from Wray (n. 45 above), p. 80.
78 SHS, ch. 3.
79 Nishio, TT, p. 229.
80 shiryō i-inkai, Rōdō undō (ed.), Nihon rōdō. undō shiryō: tōkei, X (Tokyo, 1959), pp. 468–71Google Scholar.
81 Ōkōchi (n. 26 above); Kishimoto Eitarō, “The Characteristics of Labor-Movement Relations in Japan and Their Historical Formation,” Kyoto Universify Economic Review, Oct 1965, pp. 33–35; Apr 1966, pp. 17–38.
82 A good study of these policies may be found in Tsuda Masumi, “The Basic Structure of Japanese Labor Relations,” Musashi daigaku ronshū, May 1964, pp. 1–104. Also see Hiroshi, Hazama, Nihon rōmu kanrishi kenkyū (Tokyo, 1964)Google Scholar.
83 Michael Yoshino discusses the term “industrial paternalism” in his Japan's Managerial System: Tradition and Innovation (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).
84 Japanese Blue Collar: The Changing Tradition (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 266–69Google Scholar.
85 Taira (n. 26 above), p. 151. At its peak, the prewar movement never organized more than 7.6% of th e work force. See Taira, p. 144.
86 For a study of Akamatsu in relation to tenkō, see SHS, pp. 176–79 and Shiso no kagaku kenkyōkai (ed.), Tenko, I (Toyko, 1968), ch. 2, pt. 1. The latter book also discusses Asō's tenkō. For another view that stresses continuities over “conversion” in Asō's thought, see Wray's article (n. 45 above).