a post-blog
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
In his book Blowback, Chalmers Johnson suggests that all the 20th century Asian Communist movements found mass support in anti-Imperialist Nationalism, not ideological Leftism nor pro-Soviet leanings. There's that old story of Ho Chi Minh, dressed as Oliver Twist, going up to the Caucasian Headmaster at the Treaty of Versailles convention and asking, "Please, sir, can I have some liberal democracy?" They laughed in his face, and Uncle Ho got on the next train to Moscow. In the case of China, Mao rode to power on a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment, not widespread agreement with agrarian-adapted Marxist. No one likes being an Imperial subject, and most would rather go Red than lick the boots of second-rate Frenchmen.
Does post-War Japan fit into this pattern of American anti-Communism vs. Communist anti-Imperialism struggle in Asia? Johnson makes an excellent case.
Point One: the New Deal wonks of the Early Occupation foster democracy and equality by supporting unions, a legal Japan Communist Party, land reform, anti-monopolism, etc., but fearing a Red Japan after the Fall of China, America takes a page from its standard play-book and puts the least egregious members of the Imperialist government back into power. A bit of: "They may be bastards, but they're our bastards." It only takes the LDP a mere decade to crown a former Class A War Criminal and mob-tied Kishi Nobusuke Prime Minister. From Johnson's perspective, the "Reverse Course" was a quieter Iran '53.
Point Two: the CIA financially supports the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party to give them an unfair advantage over the Socialist alternative. Meanwhile in Asia, the CIA gives backing to stalwarts of democracy like Syngman Rhee, Ferdinand Marcos, and a whole cavalcade of army generals. It is unclear, however, how much this backing actually helped the LDP win elections, seeing that the voting system was structurally stacked against the left-leaning urban areas from the start.
 | Point Three: those involved in the 1960 Ampo Treaty Riots were protesting the renewal of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty in a general mood of anti-Imperialism. The Leftist student leaders in Bund have always denied anti-Americanism as their main impedance for protest, but the millions of quiet supporters no doubt cared much less about Communist ideals and more about rejecting a future course of American toadyism. In spite of massive public demonstrations and wide animosity to the treaty's ratification, the LDP literally locked the Socialists out of the Diet and passed the bill. The LDP also hired yakuza thugs and Ultra-Nationalists to bust heads on the street and protect American dignitaries. |
At the end of the War, the Japanese received their democracy from above and were told that they now held the power of self-determination. But when the country's voices opposed the Rightist party line, the LDP quickly bent the rules to reinstall order. Not even a decade had passed before the democratic experiment was exposed to be a sham. "Politics" was forever dead in Japan, with residual anger quieted by the rising incomes of the 1960s. One-party states have much more success when they increase the standard of living and do not "disappear" too many people.
The student group Bund dissolved after the Ampo riots failed to change foreign policy, and the student protesters of the late 1960s squandered their public support by going ballistic about minor campus incidents, destroying public property, amassing caches of Molotov cocktails, killing cops, hijacking planes, and lynching fellow comrades. After 1970, being "political" came to mean only explicit support of the LDP: mostly farmers, construction companies, gangs, shop owners, and everyone else who gets a direct Boss Tweed-style handout.
Academics are always convinced that the rebirth of Japanese politics is right around the corner, as if the DPJ will suddenly become a viable second party. But check the demographic breakdown: Japan's most educated white-collar workers are thoroughly apolitical and the working classes depend even more now on LDP pork barrel projects and protection for their job security in the post-manufacturing era.
The One-Party Japanese State is here to stay, but perhaps Japan can at least cut the American leash in the future, right? Unfortunately for the Pacifist Japanese masses, the LDP only presents two options: remilitarize with a nod to past Imperialist glories or maintain a Japanese pseudo-pacificism under the American protectorate. Politics could offer a third way, but thanks to the gifts of U.S. foreign policy, they don't have that here.
Posted by marxy at February 12, 2006 9:15 PMWhat absolute nonsense!
No, Japan in 2006 is not a "cia-backed one-party state" and until you can present even the slightest shred of evidence that it is, I would recommend sticking to your usual targets of wishful over-analysis.
There is a lot to be said about the sorry state of politics here and elsewhere. Ludicrous conspiracy theories do not contribute much to the discussion. Heard of Occam's Razor?
Posted by: Sho at February 13, 2006 5:51 AMa third way
you wouldn't be talking thesis, antithesis, synthesis would you ?
again you (and mr johnson, by the looks of it) are looking at the other as a primitive self.
Posted by: alin at February 13, 2006 6:18 AMSho, I submit as evidence of CIA backing the enormous prevalence of the Footloose soundtrack in Japan. It must have been orchestrated.
Posted by: saru at February 13, 2006 9:34 AMMy title was clearly over-provocative, but yes, the ruling party in Japan has received CIA funds over the years for the purpose of keeping the Left out of power. I very much doubt they still receive backing now, but the corruption process essentially derailed democracy so early that this money is no longer needed to keep the LDP (and the American bases) in Japan.
If you are looking for a "shred of evidence" that the CIA supported the LDP, just look it up almost anywhere. I'm not sure which part you consider a "ludicrous conspiracy theory."
Also, note that the unelected bureaucracy holds way more power in Japan than the legislative branch, which makes the elected officials actually less important to Japanese policy than the entrenched interests of a large inertial body.
again you (and mr johnson, by the looks of it) are looking at the other as a primitive self.
Kneejerk alert: the non-contextual use of the word "Other"!
Posted by: marxy at February 13, 2006 10:05 AMGive me a break. Your title is clearly in the present tense. Since it's so easy to find "almost anywhere", it should be easy for you to give a link to any reputable source showing CIA payments to the LDP or anyone else in Japan in the last 20 years.
Oh, what's that? You're actually talking about the 1960s? Well that's a bit different then, isn't it? Sorry for raining on your comfortable parade, but why don't you have a bit of basic intellectual honesty and not write such "overly provocative" (ie, completely wrong) titles?
Seems to me the obvious reasons for the failings of democracy in Japan are the massive, entrenched bureaucracy and insufficient separation between government and big business. Whether or not this was engineered by the CIA fifty years ago is rather moot. To say that, today, the LDP is CIA-backed, as the thesis for your piece undeniably does - that's the ludicrous conspiracy theory.
I mean really. Maybe you should state your intentions here. Are you just trying to provide lightweight lefty fluff to keep your crowd of admirers coming back for the next circle-jerk? Or are you actually serious in these attempts to analyse and explain the world as you see it? If it's the former, I won't bother jumping down your throat anymore, although I do wish you'd stop muddying the waters. If it's the latter, then you need to lift your game, and waving criticism away ("clearly over-provocative!") won't cut it.
Posted by: Sho at February 13, 2006 12:25 PMFine, "Was Japan a CIA-backed One-Party State?" What I am mostly asking is whether Japan fits the pattern of U.S. intervention in other Asian nations during the Cold War. I think the answer is yes.
Whether or not this was engineered by the CIA fifty years ago is rather moot.
It's not moot. The present system is influenced by its historical circumstances, one of which being that the CIA gave massive aid to the conservative party. You are right to question whether that funding still continues (although files on that issue have yet to be declassified), but to say that the '55 system does not inform Japanese politics today is silly. I think the debasement of democracy in the 60s generally led to a disillusionment with the idea of grass-roots political change in Japan.
An obvious point of connection with the present: Abe is the grandson of Kishi.
your crowd of admirers coming back for the next circle-jerk
I get this criticism a lot, but if you've ever noticed, a good third of the comments on this blog are pretty oppositional to my position. Having a lot of readers is different than having a lot of supporters.
I also think you take my site way too literally. I'm not sure Ho Chi Minh really took the next train to Moscow.
Posted by: marxy at February 13, 2006 12:35 PMCircle-jerking, jumping down throats, and muddying the waters? Very disturbing mix of metaphors there.
Posted by: saru at February 13, 2006 2:23 PMhmm. is it evil to say that I'm glad, one way or another that japan didn't go commie? I want a politically motivated japan as much as the next joe expat, but even if it is conservative, a populist, peaceable government is a nice thing to have.
Posted by: nate at February 13, 2006 4:52 PMnon-contextual use of the word "Other"!
i kind of see what you mean but, and don't particularly like the xx studies 101 lingo but how would you describe all the semi-fictional talk of 'them' (even if ironic at times in your case, probably not in mr. johnson's) while at all cost keeping your own enlightened position - head and shoulders above.
it might also be ok to revise the dubious concept that 'democracy' rained down from above shortly after the litle man/fat boy incidents.
Posted by: alin at February 13, 2006 5:30 PMJapan may not have gone communist, but it has been, remains, and will continue to be a deeply collectivist culture. Collectivism is the social face of the economic system of communism, and in a way it's communism's ultimate goal. Japan may not have economic communism, but it does have a society which benefits enormously from collectivism. It's possible to cite Western communist societies (my own home, East Germany, before 1989, for instance) which, although economically communist, were never as socially collectivist as Japan is right now.
Posted by: Momus at February 13, 2006 5:31 PMthere are many ways to the so called communist (collectivist) view. marx's (karl) was one and obviously articulated at and for a particular time and place and basicaly only minorly revant even in eastern europe let alone the 'far east". sad it took over a century for this to become clear.
Posted by: alin at February 13, 2006 8:55 PMis it evil to say that I'm glad, one way or another that japan didn't go commie?
That's the rub. I like all the Leftism in theory, but the Rengo Sekigun incident questioned whether Japan could have stayed away from Stalinist purges, etc.
Japan may not have gone communist, but it has been, remains, and will continue to be a deeply collectivist culture.
This is problematic, because you are assuming that collectivism means "collectivism with equality" when most collectivist societies are "collectivism with a strict hierarchy/elite class." Throughout time, Japan always had collectivism enforced by a very small ruling class, and it is only recently that there have been equal rights (both political and economic) mixed with the collectivist instincts. Debate still exists whether elitism still guides the system, but Japanese collectivism is not an ahistorical, apolitical problem detached from economics or social structure.
If you don't care where your collectivism is created (there surely must be some social or cultural structure that induces collectivist urges, no?), than sure, Japan is "collectivist." Otherwise, you have to at least note that 95% of Japan's existence featured collectivism for the bottom working for those at the top.
Collectivism is pretty swell for the exploiting foreign visitor though, right?
Posted by: marxy at February 13, 2006 10:07 PMSho: try "Embracing Defeat," "Tokyo Underworld," or "Yakuza" for info about CIA backing of the Liberal Party, and later the LDP. The Lockheed incident was more than 20 years ago, I'm sure we'll eventually find out about things in the last 2 decades of the 20th century given time.
Posted by: Chris_B at February 13, 2006 10:29 PMmarxy, are you immune from the "exploiting foreign visitor" tag in your own eyes? Do you suppose you can be? Not that your being "guilty too" means you have no right to chide momus (this is a right granted to us all by a generous god).
presuming you don't expect to shrug your privilege like a jacket, do you do anything regarding your undeserved status other than enjoy it?
Posted by: nate at February 13, 2006 10:35 PMOh, we're all exploiting foreigners. I'm not trying to say I'm above it.
Collectivism comes at a price, which none of us are really paying. Some Japanese may feel like they are getting a good deal out of their investment. I doubt that every single Japanese person enjoys collectivism more than individualism, but am not in a position to make a universal statement about which is more satisfying. (Although I've overreached in the past, clearly.)
As a foreigner, can you really go on about how great collectivism is when you've only experienced it as a free product?
One reading of Momus' philosophy would clearly be: I enjoy collectivist Japan because it doesn't infringe on my super-individualist lifestyle.
Posted by: marxy at February 13, 2006 10:52 PMI'm working on moving from intermediate exploitation of the largess of the japanese feds (the jet programme) to advanced exploitation (the monbushou research scholarships).
I think the next and final step (as has been suggested here before) is creating your own jimusho, and exploiting a special market weakness to your own great profit. but first things first...
"exploiting foreign visitor"
as far as japan goes this seems to be very much an anglo-saxon syndrome. anyone any clues as to why this may be ?
Posted by: alin at February 14, 2006 7:05 AMalin, you're full of shit. exploiting visitor is the status of everyone of any economic comfort in japan. anglo-saxons are just the only ones being so smug about it... in a language you can understand.
Posted by: nate at February 14, 2006 7:38 AMdavid say: One reading of Momus' philosophy would clearly be: I enjoy collectivist Japan because it doesn't infringe on my super-individualist lifestyle.
r. say: bravo.
Posted by: r. at February 14, 2006 7:03 PMAgain, collectivism is neither an amazing boon nor a horrible affliction - it is simply another method of societal operation.
But because we're almost comparing diametric opposites, it's very easy to trumpet the advantages, overlook the negatives, and completely abandon the middle ground...
(Then again, if certain individuals were reasonable about these sorts of things it might dampen the redundant series of sensational altercations that help fill space at various online logs...)
"One reading of Momus' philosophy would clearly be: I enjoy collectivist Japan because it doesn't infringe on my super-individualist lifestyle."
Yes, there is a relief that many foreigners find when moving to Japan. Whereas they had previously wasted energy (ranging from fashion choices to bumper stickers to protests to whatever) to make it clear to the status quo of their homeland that they were not in agreement with this status quo, upon moving to Japan the learn that no such effort is required. Since the Japanese society prohibits integration by foreigners (no matter their effort), foreigners are automatically granted status as outsiders. Many of us feel more comfortable in that role. (while others, starved for acceptance, either make vain, and often quite comiical, attempts at becoming Japanese or simply retreat to their homeland and join the country club).
Posted by: Slim at February 15, 2006 4:57 AMThe topic seems to have veered a bit from Japanese politics, but I'd like to bring it back for a minute.
I don't have all my facts with me to make a very coherent case, but I just want to say that while I don't count myself as one of those people who thinks that Japan is always just about to turn the corner, if you look at the elections that have taken place since major electoral reform was carried out (switch from multimember election districts to single-member) have shown that future LDP control of the government is far from certain.
There is no way to tell how involved the CIA is in Japanese politics right now (though I can more or less guarantee you that the top leaders of Japan have regular meetings with CIA officials). Also at this point, I don't think that the LDP has any trouble raising funds on its own, and whatever slush funds the CIA set up for it have probably already been laundered somewhere.
But it is a fact that the DPJ had been gaining seats progressively in each election since its formation in 2001, so much so that it only required the defection of 18 or so LDP members in the Upper House to defeat the postal privatization legislation (though 30 eventually did rebel), which led to the General Election in September.
That election led to a huge victory for the LDP, but that victory was notable first for American support of a very different kind from the CIA (Bush's PR firm) and for the types of voters it attracted to the LDP -- TV-watching urbanites, the same people you (more or less rightly) dismissed as being apolitical. The LDP achieved this by having a charismatic leader with great hair, limiting the scope of debate by staying on message (postal privatization!!!), and orchestrating a riveting drama pitting the reform-minded LDP (and cute new "Koizumi children") against the vested interests represented by the postal rebels and (somehow) the DPJ.
Remind you of US-style elections a little? Competing for constituents based on policies and theater is vastly different from the traditional way for the LDP to run an election, which was basically to round up its traditional support bases (as you quite eloquently described) and be done with it. The bad thing is the LDP played the new game to its advantage, but the good thing is that, in theory, anyone could do it, even the DPJ (which at least tried - they had a US PR firm of their own, it just happened to be caught unprepared for the ultra-effective push by the LDP [the ineffectual slogans didn't help either]).
Unfortunately, while the election system has changed, other aspects of Japan's political landscape - the LDP's close relationship with big business and the bureaucracy itself- have not. Why is this important? Well, one can see a telling example in the DPJ's "counterproposal" to the LDP's resubmitted postal privatization bills in October 2005. The counterproposal was a miniscule 11 pages compared to the LDP's 500-plus megalaw.
This just goes to show that the DPJ very simply does not have the technocratic expertise to make policy, which is something the Japanese public understands. The LDP (well, the *governement*) postal privatization bills were formed after months of intense discussion and debate that involved the greatest minds in Japanese policy both in and out of the bureaucracy. The DPJ (or any other party for that matter) could not even begin to hope for such access because, for better or worse, there is no reason for bureaucrats, academics, academia, or even the Japanese people (it can be argued) to work with a party that can't get things done. It's a vicious cycle that will probably continue more or less unabated until the next time the LDP gets booted from power.
Posted by: adamu at February 15, 2006 9:42 AMUmm, some corrections:
DPJ was formed in 1998.
LDP used modern PR techniques but only used a *Japanese* PR firm for consulting and put the election strategy in the hands of Hiroshige Seko, a Diet member who came from the PR Dept. of NTT. The DPJ, however, signed up for Fleischman-Hilliard's full image management package to disastrous results.
Posted by: Adamu at February 15, 2006 12:52 PMshit. exploiting visitor is the status of everyone of any economic comfort in japan.
oh nate, says who?
the chinese dudes that appear in the next entry, romanian exotic dancers to name 2 obvious and clearcut subcategories, all of them enjoying as much economic comfort as marxy is (according to what he is saying at least) (and objectively speaking probably "exploiting" i.e. gaining materially more than you guys) yet they dont realy think of themselves, nor are they thought of as exploiting visitors. you missed my point.
Posted by: alin at February 15, 2006 7:43 PMI'd argue that yes, those chinese folks are aware of themselves as a foreign presence benefitting from the health of the economy, without being accepted as members of the society at large.
and that economic comfort is not just money you have, but your means of earning it. some dancers may be able to claim that comfort, but not many.
Posted by: nate at February 15, 2006 9:04 PMsome dancers
well, i met and heard of 7 of those particular dancers in the last few weeks and 100% of them have built or bought between 2 and six houses each in their native towns. so from my incidental research it is not some but an absolute all.
also none of them seemed in any way unhappy with what they were doing. on the contrary.
i would get back to my, not quite stated , original point but i m afraid it might be offensive and trigger more unnecessary arguements.
Posted by: alin at February 17, 2006 7:55 PMso long as we're talking about original points, wouldn't the rich "dancers" then make an even better example of exploiting foreign visitors?
Posted by: nate at February 17, 2006 10:48 PM