💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › cira-nippon-what-kind-of-organization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:22:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What kind of organization? Author: CIRA-Nippon Date: January 1975 Language: en Topics: Japan, Anarchist Federation Source: https://libcom.org/library/wot-organization
One way or another, few anarchists in Japan these days are able to
ignore the current debate over the need for a new national organization.
The ball was first put into play two years ago by young Kyoto activists
who then, last summer, suddenly issued a program and statement of
principles for the new organization they advocated. The clearness with
which these two drafts were set out suggested a great deal of
preparation, and most people were taken by surprise. Once they
recovered, however, the issue of anarchists' attitudes towards
organization in no time became the central one within the Japanese
movement. While not everyone supported the suggestion, few people were
left untouched by the succession of arguments which exploded everywhere.
What was it that made young Japanese anarchists, almost without
exception, throw themselves into this discussion despite the suddenness
with which it emerged? The answer lies, beyond a doubt, in the current
low ebb in anti-establishment activities in Japan, and the need which
most people feel for a basic re-evaluation of the anarchist movement's
fundamental tenets.
In the immediate aftermath of the voluntary dissolution of the Japan
Anarchist Federation (JAF) in 1968, discussion of forming a new national
organization was sporadic and uncoordinated. Once the heady days of the
late 60s / early 70s passed, however, and the anarchists entered upon a
period of circumspection - the "period of winter", as they call it -
voices again began to be heard urging the rebuilding of group relations:
in particular, the reconstruction of the national federation. The
realization that the "summer" had not been fully exploited (see below)
made these voices the more strident.
At the centre of the new movement were the 'Japan Anarchists' League
Preparatory Committees' in the Tokyo, Nagoya, and Kansai
(Kobe-Osaka-Kyoto) districts. Their minimum suggestions were, first,
concrete contacts between Tokyo and the provinces; and second, a
national information centre.
In this three-part article we'll summarize the proposals of the
Preparatory committees and the criticisms that have been made of them,
describe the progress of the new movement to date, and finally add some
notes of our own. First of all, however, in this first part it'd be
useful to look back briefly at conditions before and after 1968, for the
arguments surrounding the recent revival of the national federation
issue can be said to date back to JAF's self-dissolution in that year.
Hence the main theme of the arguments coming from the preparatory
committees has been the old JAF and the situation which it left in the
wake of its disappearance.
The best English-language source on the recent circumstances of the
anarchist movement in Japan is Tsuzuki Chushichi's article 'Anarchism in
Japan' in Apter & Joll's Anarchism Today (see 'Now Read On...' in this
issue). The paper is brief and to the point, especially in its
evaluation of the post-war movement. After quickly dealing with pre-war
conditions, Professor Tsuzuki then focuses on the anti-war activities
launched by students and local citizens' groups all over Japan in the
60s and 70s. In particular, he makes the important point that, while
these did not call themselves anarchist movements, they should be
recognized as having been highly anarchistic in their aims and methods.
In choosing to lay the stress on this area, Tsuzuki accurately reflects
the post-war development of the Japanese anarchist movement.
After the war, Japanese Marxists, skillfully riding the waves of
'Potsdam Democracy', succeeded in seizing the lead of the labour and
social movements, and quickly turned them to their own purposes. The
anarchists, meanwhile, missed the bus, failed utterly to expand their
support, and never neared achieving anything which might truthfully have
been called a real movement. Despite the vigorousness of the labour and
student movements in those early years, very few anarchists took an
active part, and it must be confessed that what few activities they did
promote were largely ineffectual. The one exception was their work in
the pacifist movement - such as the Japanese branch of War Resisters
International - yet this bore little relation to the dominant trends of
the time.
JAF, for its own part, concentrated on putting out its bulletins, and
one would have been hard-put to pinpoint any concrete activities amongst
its isolated and scattered groups of members (except however, for a few
in the Tokyo, Nagoya and Kansai regions). Meanwhile, social conditions
in Japan, and the overall trend of the Left in general, were changing
dramatically.
In common with developments in the rest of the world, the violent
confrontation policy of the Japan Communist Party's (JCP) immediate
post-war days was bankrupted by the events in Hungary in 1956 and the
international criticism of Stalinism which followed. The myth of the CP
as the pre-ordained vanguard of the revolution crashed. The effect on
Party members and on the Japanese Left in general was catastrophic. The
first indication of the new state of affairs was the eruption in 1960 of
the AMPO (Amerika-Japan Joint Security Treaty) struggle - the first
great popular outburst in post-war Japan.
JAF, unlike most other revolutionary organizations, was left far behind
by the rapidly accelerating rate of change. For the anarchists, this new
criticism of Stalinism was already a fundamental part of their
programme. The repression in Hungary should merely have confirmed their
arguments: the opportunity was a golden one, but did they exploit it?
Far from it - JAF completely underestimated the traumas which the events
had sparked off among the Marxists. As a result, when the anti-AMPO
struggle broke out, JAF took no part, and members ignored it as they
threw themselves into their own local activities.
Criticism of JAF's obvious impotence began almost at once. "JAF is just
another group; while it may claim national boundaries, it has absolutely
no meaning as a federation. We should concentrate on our own local
activities and ignore it." Views of this sort were commonly held -
particularly among the Kansai members - and were voiced as early as the
autumn of 1953 in a speech entitled 'On Rebuilding the Federation, and
the Present State of the Movement', delivered to that year's National
Conference by the delegate Yamaguchi:
"We have an elaborate programme for current activities, but have never
considered how to put it into practice. We have an ideal set of
principles, but they remain unrealized. We have a few members dotted
around the country - most are simply names on the register who make no
real contribution; others are just sympathizer types, whose allegiance
we can never rely on. Then there are a few "old" anarchists who, if you
run across them, give you a little money "for the cause" and chat a bit,
and finally the young ones who, no sooner than they become members,
withdraw again. With only these people to call upon, cooperation between
local branches has become comatose. Instead, we have a few scattered
efforts, and that's the lot.
"On the positive side then, what do we have? Well, we have an irregular
bulletin, Anakizumu;and then we have sporadic, unplanned meetings which
nobody pays much attention to..."
While JAF thus amounted to little more than a political contemplation
circle, there were in fact some who wanted to make it into something
more, such as the same delegateYamaguchi:
"Since the federation is no more than a circle, why don't we just face
facts and reorganize it accordingly? I don't mean that we should destroy
the federation - it is what it is, so we simply acknowledge the truth by
changing both the form of the organization and our own attitudes
accordingly. We have three tasks: number one, to face the facts; number
two, on the basis of these facts, to make a clear-cut decision as to
what direction we want to go in; and number three, after considering
concrete measures to take us in that direction, to agree amongst
ourselves to concentrate the strength of all members of the federation
to implement those measures." [quoted in Mukai Ko" Yamaga Taiji,p 1771]
Consequently, in 1962, just as people were beginning to assess the
meaning of the now-finished anti-AMPO struggle, JAF at last amended its
principles to state specifically: "JAF is not a movement organization",
but a "study group on theory and ideology". Few practical changes
followed, however, as this merely made the name fit the facts.
On the other hand, unforeseen consequences were to follow. What - the
principles it laid down for itself, just the name 'Japan Anarchist
Federation' gave the impression of are volutionary organization engaged
in practical and useful activities. Hence many young people drawn to it
for this reason were quickly disillusioned. Behind the decision to turn
the federation into a pure study group had been the desire to prevent
disillusionment with the federation by reducing the gap between theory
and practice. By retaining the name 'Anarchist Federation', however, the
effect was to destroy people's faith in anarchism itself, as well as in
JAF.
The 1960-1970 period witnessed a new flowering within the
anti-establishment movement of the Japanese Left. Most significant was
the growth in the late 60s of the 'non-sect radicals' - anti-Stalinist
militants opposed to the hegemony of the JCP. This was the principal
factor distinguishing the first anti-AMPO struggle, peaking in 1960 -
which was led for the most part by the established (ie, JCP-dominated)
Left - from the second, aimed at preventing the renewal of the Treaty in
1970. In fact, this second phase was no more than one aspect of a broad
popular movement emerging simultaneously on several fronts.
The movement at that time comprised a union of students, particularly
the non-JCP radicals, under the banner of the 'Students' Joint Struggle
Committee' (Zenkyõtõ), and the group representative of the anti-war
sentiments strong among the Japanese people, the 'Citizens' Committee
for Peace in Vietnam' (Beheiren). The students' tactic, that of making
each university a separate "storm centre" of the revolutionary struggle,
had a great effect, one which continues to this day even though the
movement itself has entered a quiet phase.
In the mid- to late 60s, Beheiren groups were born all over the country,
and immediately began to initiate local struggles to eradicate local
grievances through their own efforts. While they recognized, people like
Oda Makoto, the first to advocate a citizens' movement, as their
theoretical and practical leaders, this anti-war, anti-JCP popular
movement was certainly not one to allow itself to be led by the nose. It
was a genuine social movement capable of drawing in all people living in
Japan, free of domination by either the labour movement or the students.
'Citizens' group' was simply a generic term to apply to a whole
multitude of spontaneous popular activities. When activists decided to
come together to give their spontaneity some kind of "movement form",
therefore, the idea of an 'organization' was strongly resisted.
"Beheiren is born when we ourselves declare it so!"; "Not an
organization, but a movement!" Consequently, Beheiren existed so long as
there was an active movement involving its members in their own local
struggles. Since that movement has itself disappeared because of the new
conditions in Indochina, Beheiren too has been dissolved.
Beheiren was like a breath of fresh air to the Japanese Left, its style
something completely new in the history of popular movements in Japan.
In its dependence upon horizontal relationships, based on a nationwide
mutual consciousness of solidarity in the same struggle, it was a
manifest criticism of the centralized organizations hitherto dominant on
the left. In the Beheiren movement, we caught a glimpse of the kind of
solidarity which only a free federation could achieve.
The characteristics of the Beheiren movement may be listed as follows:
of individual groups;
tendency was acceptable on condition that it contributed to these aims,
and did not seek to coerce others' acceptance of its own premises.
Consequently, Beheiren activists included Marxists, anarchists, social
democrats, liberals, and all the shades in between.
and who had hitherto been denied a chance to take part in any activity.
'movement'. As noted before, this amounted to a rejection of the
centralized power structure common to most Left groupings in the past.
Japan was no exception to the ferment which hit the world's universities
following the 1968 May Days in Paris, and the non-sect radicals played a
major role. Although the alliance later degenerated into a struggle for
hegemony over the student movement, in the beginning these groups placed
a premium upon spontaneous activity. The organization which they
created, Zenkyõtõ, constituted a major revolt against the establishment,
and it is significant that the most violent attacks on the new style,
physical as well as political, were launched by the JCP-oriented section
of the students (known as Minsei). This period of student rebellion is
usually referred to as the "Zenkyõtõ Movement".
Zenkyõtõ, with branches in every university, rebelled specifically and
violently against the university authorities. From here, the struggle
exploded naturally and simultaneously against the authority of the
Japanese system itself. The solidarity created by the realization of a
common aim was the strongest characteristic of the Zenkyõtõ Movement. In
the most popular slogan of the time "Strength in Solidarity, Without
Fear of Isolation" - can be seen the all-important combination:
self-reliance and determination, and the knowledge of complete
solidarity within the movement. In short, the characteristics which we
already noted as typical of Beheiren, were equally representative of
Zenkyõtõ.[1]
In terms of political results, these two movements, Beheiren and
Zenkyõtõ, achieved little. However, what they did achieve was something
far greater - through their concrete activities and agitation, they
played an immeasurable educative role which affected not only those
taking part, but also the consciousness of vast numbers of people
throughout Japan. This effect can now be seen in the multitude of
anti-pollution, anti-inflation, anti-war and other groups existing all
over the country. Practically every issue, however minor, is capable of
giving rise to a new citizens' group.
The conditions of the time were a thorough exoneration of anarchist
theory. In fact, one could say that, for a time, to use a time-worn
phrase, "anarchy prevailed". There was a general tendency to look beyond
Marx to explain the theoretical meaning of this multi-centred,
spontaneous movement. So fertile was the soil at this time! The only
problem for the anarchists was that, while this great upsurge was taking
place, JAF wasnowhere to be seen.
In the late 60s, 'Anarchism Study Groups' had sprung up in practically
every university of Japan. Members took an active part in the Zenkyõtõ
Movement, gaining a reputation as the 'Black Helmet Brigade' (although,
since they generally abstained from the kind of street-fighting designed
to enhance one's own group's position as ideological standard-bearer of
the Left, they did not receive the international acclaim that many ofthe
quasi-Trotskyist factions did).
JAF was way out of line with all this activity. Most members of the
federation simply forgot it as they got on with their own thing. JAF
therefore found itself stranded - both by the movement itself and by the
rapidly-changing social situation. Subsequently observing the difficulty
of raising any enthusiasm in its ideology study groups, and seeing its
mutual contacts with local groups falling off, JAF, via a succession of
self-critical reviews (an anachronistic occupation at the time, for a
start!), gradually began to get the message.
At the same time, however, the attitude towards it of anarchist
activists also began to harden. From "the movement can get along fine
without a national federation", the general feeling turned to "this
national federation is a positive hindrance to the movement!" The final
breakdown came as a result of the crack which yawned within the
federation itself over the Haihansha (Society of Rebels) Incident. This
was a raid on a Nagoya factory carried out in the name of the anti-war
movement by a small anarchist group affiliated to JAF. From this
incident may be dated JAF's last days. In 1968, at long last, it
resolved upon voluntary dissolution. The last issue of its bulletin,
Free Federation (Jiyü Rengo), which appeared in January 1969, announced
the move as "progressive dissolution", and even as "deployment in the
face of the enemy". Be that as it may, JAF, in 1968, finally
acknowledged what had been the truth since the early 60's, and
voluntarily put an end to itself. Ironically enough, this ignominious
end came at the peak of a new upsurge in the anarchist movement, and
amongst increasing activity by the "new" anarchists. As for the reasons
for JAF's demise, only now, midway through the 70's, is the work of
evaluation beginning.
The Japan Anarchist Federation (JAF) dissolved itself in 1968. In the
words of its dissolution manifesto, the move was a "deployment in the
face of the enemy." Social conditions were heading for a new high point,
and all sorts of new social movements were being born. JAF's decision to
deploy was thus based on the expectation of a re-birth (of the anarchist
movement, that is) in the midst of this refreshing atmosphere. What it
amounted to was, in fact, JAF's admission of failure to relate to people
as it was currently constituted.
Of these new social movements, two are most worthy of notice. One was
the student rebellion (Zenkyõtõ), a link in the world-wide chain of
student outbursts of the late 60s. The other was Beheiren (see part 1),
a movement which denounced the rape of., Vietnam by U.S. imperialism and
the Japanese government's complicity therein. Although with the
subsequent lapse of the overall social movement into a "quiet" phase,
the former fell into the hands of the so-called "New Left"
Marxist-Leninist sects, both Beheiren and Zenkyõtõ were once
distinguishable by their reliance on individual spontaneity.
Neither of the two were movements of anarchists, nor did either of them
profess anarchist beliefs. Truth to say, very few people involved made
the connection between their activities and "anarchist" ones. In any
case, the nature of the two movements made such distinctions irrelevant.
When a movement is prospering, and in practical terms moving towards the
realization of anarchy, not only do such arguments and false
distinctions not arise, there is no time even for debating them.
Overall, conditions at the time were very close to the theoretical
projections of anarchism. That is, the movement seemed to be heading
towards a state of anarchy, to judge from the attitudes and actions of
its participants. Even the mass media were forced to confess that the
revolutionary doctrine of anarchy, so long hidden under the shadow of
Marxism, had been rediscovered. For the first time, reflected in the
mass media as well as in general publishing activities, anarchism began
to receive the serious attention it deserved. For example, it was at
this time that Daniel Guerin's Anarchism was published and attracted a
wide readership, to be followed by a spate of publications concerning
anarchism. The appearance of Guerin's book marked the first time since
the war that the ideas of anarchism had been made available in a
genuine, complete, compact and, moreover, cheap form. For many young
Japanese, I think, this book worked as an introductory course to
anarchy.
With the popular movement at its height, interest in anarchism was
widespread, and many "new" anarchists were appearing. The problem was,
to what extent were the anarchists themselves able to grasp the
significance of the fact that many people were becoming acquainted with
anarchism through a movement which was developing, by and large,
independent of the anarchists? Frankly speaking, not well enough, though
some people admittedly worked hard to realize their proposals for
restructuring anarchist theory to suit the changing social conditions
and to anticipate future developments.
Even after JAF's dissolution, local anarchists continued to form their
own groups and engage in local activities as before. For some, indeed,
it could even be said that the end of JAF offered a fresh opportunity
for action. Apart from the anarchism study circles up and down the
country, other groups which immediately spring to mind are the Mugi Sha
(Barley Society - so named because the character used to transliterate
the "ba" of "Bakunin" into Japanese means literally "barley") and the
Libertaire group in Tokyo; the Rebel Association (Futei Sha), Osaka
Anarchism Study Society and Kyoto Anarchism Study Society, both in
Kansai; and the Liberty and the Pale Horse Society groups in northern
Japan. There must surely have been many more than that which we don't
know about. Most of them seem to have been small. The biggest was the
Libertaire group in Tokyo, still active today, holding regular meetings
and putting out a small magazine, Libertaire (in Japanese). However, one
more group which formed at this time demands attention. This comprised
the people who formed around the monthly Osaka publication Jiyü Rengõ
(Free Federation).
The Osaka Jiyü Rengõ published its first "preparatory issue" on March
10, 1969, and ceased publication 3 1/2 years later on October 15, 1972.
Circulation grew from 1000 at the outset, through 1800. a year later, to
2500 when publication ceased. The regular readership also grew, from 800
after the first year to 1800 at the end. While many of the readers lived
either in Tokyo or in the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe areas, distribution was
nationwide. In social terms, while a large proportion of the readership
naturally comprised young people and students, in fact there was a very
broad mix. Space does not allow a detailed examination of the part
played by the Osaka Jiyü Rengõ. What follows are just the impressions
left by its most outstanding features.
In the first place, it should be pointed out that the Osaka Jiyü Rengõ
took its name from that of an earlier JAF broadsheet of the same name.
However, as the Osaka Jiren (we use this abbreviation to distinguish it
from the JAF paper, which was usually known as Jiren) stated time and
time again, while it retained the name of the JAF paper, it was not the
organ of any one group. Instead, it insisted, by paying for the paper
through taking out subscriptions the readership was expressing and
concretely proving its "sincere desire to create a free federation
within the movement." Thus was a new kind of managerial form created.
The idea which its title suggested, of an anarchist organ, was wrong.
"Through this paper we are aiming at a broad, anti-establishment,
free-federated movement, including but not restricted to anarchists.
This is because we believe that, above all else, the complete equality
of every movement, joined together in a federation allowing complete
freedom of action, is essential if the present anti-establishment
struggle is to wage a successful fight.
"Jiren must at all times correspond to actual conditions. The idea of a
'free federation' with no relationship to current conditions is simply
nonsense. This is why the backbone of Jiren is on-the-spot, subjective
reports from actual participants in concrete struggles." (No. 13,
20/3/70)
In other words, what the Osaka Jiren was aiming at was to encourage
awarenesss that the kind of organizational forms then being created
within the Beheiren and Zenkyõtõ movements amounted to free federation
forms. For this purpose, it would provide an open forum and a meeting
place for people actually involved in these struggles. While
anticipating that it would be confused with the old JAF Jiyu Rengo, the
Osaka Jiren insisted that the name was simply the most appropriate to
express the position of the Osaka group. So the question which cropped
up over and over again during the 3 1/2 years of the paper's life was:
What is a free federation?
As the above quote made clear, Osaka Jiren did not want to be labelled
an anarchist paper produced by anarchists, and deliberately assumed a
ppsture which rejected such a position. For outsiders this must have
seemed a highly curious situation. The paper was rich in information
about anarchism and news of anarchist groups - in fact it was the only
national outlet for such material. For people trying to find out more
about anarchism (as we said, great numbers of young people were then
turning on to anarchism), and for the anarchists themselves, there was
simply no other source covering the whole country. Hence the impression
of an "anarchist monthly" which Osaka Jiren gave was quite inevitable.
Nevertheless, the paper rejected the strict anarchist standpoint, on the
grounds that it sought to create a much broader-based, federated social
movement. For the establishment of the "open forum" envisaged by Osaka
Jiren, its members felt that to accept the label of "anarchists" would
have been a hindrance.
That they were reasonably successful in this attempt can be seen from
the figures for circulation and subscription. Very few other libertarian
papers went beyond the groups which published them, and almost all
circulated only in a limited area. For people without a strong interest
in anarchism, they were extremely boring and suggested a closed shop.
Osaka Jiren, on the other hand, was somewhat different. The "liberated"
impression which it gave was largely due to its attempts to break away
from the anarchist framework. Its subscribers, scattered all over the
country, and including senior and middle-school students and many
non-anarchists, were the measure of its success.
[1] "Zenkyõtõ" should not be confused with "Zengakuren," the National
Union of Japanese Students, which was a child of the 60s and played no
role in this new struggle. Although it continued in name, after the
first anti-AMPO struggle ended in defeat, its organization was
fragmented and fell apart. Moreover, while Zengakuren was a single
organization, Zenkyõtõ should rightly be regarded as a movement.