The general perception of the labor union movement and the socialist movement in Japan before World War II is that they are past history and have little to do with those of us who participate in the ongoing endeavors. The prewar movements were a history of barren, ideological conflicts and political divisions. They are recalled merely as tragic efforts by a small number of people who did not have a popular base of support.
Many of us turn too hastily for lessons to the successes scored by the unions and socialist parties in West European countries, such as Britain, France, West Germany and Sweden, and neglect to learn from the history of failure and defeat in our own country.”
This is the thought I had on reading through Stephen S. Large’s book “Organised Workers & Socialist Politics in Interwar Japan”. As the tile indicates, the book analyzes the processes of the birth, development and destruction of unions and socialist parties in Japan from 1919, the year of the end of World War I, to 1940, the year before Japan entered World War II and when organized labor ceased to exit.
What makes the book interesting and thought-provoking is that it not only explains the situations but critically examines the factors that brought them about and the responses leaders make to the. Furthermore, by projecting past experience and behavior into the present, the book suggests that there is a continuity from the prewar days in society, unions, socialist parties and the pattern of industrial relations in today’s Japan.
The volume principally deals with the vicissitudes of the General Federation of Trade Unions (Södömei), the most important of the labor bodies that existed right up to World War II, and the various associations of union and proletarian parties that were related with it. The groups which were to form the nucleus of the Japan Socialist Party after the end of the war had their origins in these organizations – that is to say, the Shamin-Kei (Socio-Democratic clique), which included Matsuoka Komakichi and Nishio Suehiro, the Nichirö-kei (Japan Labor clique), which included Köno Mitsu and Miwa Jusö, and the Rönö-ha (Labor -Farmer faction), which included Suzuki Mosaburö and Katö Kanjü.
A systematic account is given of how these and other unions and parties, coming together and breaking up so often that their names became confused and hard to remember, were driven into the catastrophes of 1940.
The Shamin-kei was dominated by senior officials who had formerly been workers. Advocating realistic unionism, the group opted to adapt to the surrounding realities. It proclaimed cooperation in the war effort in a bid to survive, but eventually it was forced to abandon even this objective. The fact that the group remained in existence over a relatively long period enabled it to move quickly after the end of the war to rebuild the unions and the JSP. The group’s tradition is now found in the Democratic Socialist Party of Japan.
The Nichirö-kei, led by senior officials from the intellectual class, started out with a militant posture, moving at one time for the formation of a unified front, including leftists. But while trying to move ahead of the times, it made itself a cat’s-paw of the militarist by willingly merging itself into Taisei-yokusan-kai, the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, and the Sangyö-hökoku-kai, the Patriotic Industrial Association, respectively the only political and labor management bodies in existence at the time, although they existed in name only despite their grandiose national-unity framework. Although the Nichirö-kei was in the forefront of the JSP’s mainstream after the war, the group had no influence on the labor union movement. As a political force, it now has no tangible foundation within the JSP.
The Rönö-ha, which had only a small following and no popular base of support, was suppressed at an early stage before the war. In the postwar years, however, its leftist assertions had a major influence on the development of the General Council of Trade Unions of Japan (Söhyö) and the JSP. As a political force, it is now divided within the JSP. The classical Marxist influence the group exerts is thought to be fettering the party’s development.
The book gives one a fresh realization that the labor movement and the socialist movement in Japan still carry a negative legacy from the prewar days: both were movements rebuilt without adequate self-reflection on the causes of their prewar setbacks and mistakes. The negative legacy can be seen in the continuing conflicts and division and narrow-minded sectionalism. Given the book’s analyses, one cannot hail the present moves toward a unification of the labor front as something that might overcome this legacy.
Since earlier works on the history of the labor movement have focused largely on its political and ideological positions, there has been insufficient attention given to the prewar role of non-political company unions. The fact was, as this book reveals, that the major corporations started moving toward fostering company unions in their own backyards at an early stage, not wanting to see the formation of unions affiliated with outside forces. None of the greatly diversified associations of unions that existed at the time was able to achieve a significant organizational success among the major firms. There is no question that these non-political company unions provided the most important basis for the creation of the Sangyö Hökoku Undö (Undö) (Patriotic Industrial Movement), the national-unity body in which all companies and workers supposedly joined hand.
Company unions are now accepted as a major organizational form of the Japanese labor movement. The various theories which were advanced for overcoming the phenomenon after the war have faded, and in their place a positive value on such unions as a stabilizing force in labor-management relations are gaining ground. It seems that the company-unionist forces are now moving to seize the initiative for a unification of the labor front, with backing from giant corporations which are incomparably more powerful than their prewar counterparts.
The mainstreams of Söhyö and Dömei, though to varying degrees, carry on the traditions of the socialist labor movement and proletarian parties in the prewar days. The company-unionist forces, however, have nothing to do with these. There seems to be grounds for concern that these forces might follow in the footsteps of the Patriotic Industrial Movement since they are aiming at a new harmony among the political parties, unions and companies.
The labor union brings together workers who have two sides to their character: a member of the working class and an employee of a specific corporation. These two sides work against each other, but at the same time the rejection of either one of them produces a fatal flaw in the union. As the author of the book points out, social relations in Japan are characterrized by scant class-consciousness among the workers, but in contrast, their status consciousness is very strong. To a certain extent, this accounts for the difficulty of fostering comradeship and a sense of common identity among workers and the unions that represent them. Unions will not be able to overcome this barrier unless their movement develops wider objectives and values which all of their members can strive to achieve.
This formidable prospect poses a question for the present labor movement in Japan: does it have the ideals to appeal to workers and win their support over and above the corporate framework?
This book provoked me to ponder on these matters, perhaps even beyond the intentions of the author. I appreciate the fact that an arduous study like this has been carried out by a non-Japanese scholar about a period that holds the key to the understanding of the present labor movement and labor-management relations in Japan. As I know, the volume is the best that has been written on the unions and socialist parties in Japan before World War II.
Japan Quarterly, No. 1, January-March 1982
Shoichiro Hatsuoka is the Dean of Himeji Dokkyo University where he has been teaching since 1989. From 1972 to 1989 he was director of the PTTI Tokyo Office. He served as a staff member of the International and Political Department of the Japan Postal Workers’ Union (Zentei) from 1964 to 1972 and as International Secretary of the Japan Socialist Youth Union from 1960 to 1963.