Pathway to Japanese Literature

1

Mr. Shimizu Ikutaro

Though it is rude to suddenly send you a letter like this, it comes at the request of the magazine *Gunzo* that I attempt to ask you some questions. If I were to do so, you would likely respond—or so they claim—but as I lack the scholarly grounding to pose inquiries worthy of troubling you for a reply, I repeatedly declined; yet being told to write anything at all, I reluctantly set this down as briefly as possible.

I have read two or three of your works before. And I also recall reading several essays published in *Nihon Hyoron*, a magazine that has since ceased publication. Recently, I have been reading *Fujin Koron* and *Sekai*, which you have been writing for almost every month. Among those works, since last month I tried rereading only those I could still gather at hand.

As I did so, I came to feel that what you had written in those works was fairly comprehensible to me, and I found no particular objections to your views on individual issues. In some cases, I wholeheartedly agreed with your views. In such instances, you decisively and bravely expressed what those like myself had vaguely and indecisively pondered, so I felt as though my eyes were being opened. However, precisely because of that, my interest in posing questions to you had in fact significantly diminished.

However, what I realized upon rereading some of your essays this time was that you are an exceedingly kind and patient enlightener. And as I have long believed that there is no time or place more in need of an enlightenment movement than present-day Japan, I wished to express my gratitude for your efforts. At the same time, precisely because of this, despite having read your essays and generally understanding and agreeing with many points, I thought that if I were to present even a few of the doubts that have nevertheless arisen within me—or those I hold regarding various issues you address, even if not directly stemming from reading your papers—I might perhaps receive your guidance, and that this might also be of some use to others. For that reason, I am writing this.

First, I would like to ask a very small question.
This is something I wrote about in a newspaper some time ago, but it concerns *Secret History of the Korean War* by the American commentator Stone, which was translated and published last year.

On the obi strip of that book’s cover, you wrote: “From the very day the Korean War turmoil erupted, I have been tormented by suspicions that *something was being concealed*.” But my suspicions were correct. "(Omitted) 'Those who remain unenlightened even after reading this book must be called idiots,' you have written." It is that statement. I would be troubled if this were perceived as trying to nitpick by making too much of mere flattering text printed on an obi strip. I too am aware that terms like "obi sellers" and "street advertisers" exist, and I fully understand that becoming so vehement about advertising copy would be considered unreasonable. However, no matter how much it may be such a place, I thought that you would not write something irresponsible.

Moreover, the tone of your writing was vehement and definitive, and I could not lightly dismiss this as resembling some street advertiser’s spiel.
In other words, this stems from having long trusted your statements as a critic to a considerable extent, so you must forgive me.
Moreover, knowing that anyone’s true opinions or nature are more likely to be revealed through relatively careless fragments or short writings—casually let slip—than through grand treatises thoroughly prepared and cautiously presented, I have made it my habit to attach considerable importance to such things.

In fact, I was pleased to read your aforementioned statement.
The reason being that I had long been paying attention to Korea's situation even before the Korean War's outbreak and possessed a considerable number of Korean friends; thus when the war erupted, I received a profound shock. Precisely because of this, I maintain confidence that through gathering my own information about the circumstances of its outbreak, I have attained a certain degree of understanding—yet I still lack knowledge sufficient to definitively assert specific claims as being thus-and-such.
At that juncture, thinking that someone of your stature could state matters so unequivocally meant reading this book would undoubtedly clarify everything.

To be precise, I interpreted your aforementioned statement on the obi strip as follows: “Both U.S. authorities and Japanese commercial newspapers reported that the Korean War erupted because North Korea initially invaded South Korea.” However, I had felt that this was suspicious. The facts were the opposite—in other words, I had suspected that it was actually the South Korean side, or the American side, that had first invaded North Korea or provoked them. Through reading this book, I realized that my suspicions had indeed been correct. The South Korean side and the American side not only committed wrongdoing in terms of war provocation but also concealed that fact and spread false propaganda reports shifting the blame to the North Korean side—a doubly unconscionable act. I will add that I interpreted it as meaning, “Those who cannot understand such things even after reading this book must be called idiots.”

So I eagerly read it.
At first, I read it thinking, "That makes sense."
However, as I gradually read further, a strange sensation began to arise.

Stone took great pains to create the impression that the outbreak of the Korean War was entirely due to provocation or conspiracy by America’s anti-Soviet leaders and their agents in the South Korean government. He did this through a method of collecting, assembling, and cross-referencing published official documents and newspaper reports, allowing a single conclusion to naturally emerge from the contradictions and inconsistencies among them. To that extent, it appeared to be a calm, impartial, and scientific attitude. However, upon closer reading, it became clear that he started from a suspicion or conviction that all previous announcements by the U.S. government and U.N. side were fundamentally false in their entirety, then deductively selected and combined official documents and newspaper reports to prove this. Moreover, he did not touch upon where or for what reason he began to harbor such suspicions or convictions in the first place.

He seems to have either known or strongly suspected—for some reason prior to addressing us—the fact of the guilt of the American government authorities or the South Korean government.
The reason for this “something” was not a clear, concrete fact—for if he had known such concrete facts, given the nature of this book, he would not be so foolish as to omit them from its pages—but rather an ideological suspicion stemming from his own ideology, and seemingly nothing more.
In other words, he possessed a left-wing political ideology and therefore had long been convinced that most actions taken by current American government authorities were reactionary and anti-Soviet; thus, when the Korean War erupted, he immediately suspected that America and South Korea had instigated it. Starting from this strong suspicion, he gathered subsequent official documents and newspaper reports, cross-referenced them in his research, discovered numerous contradictions, and thereby transformed his suspicions into something resembling conviction—is this not the case?
At least, no matter how earnestly I read this book, I was unable to discover any reason other than that.

That Stone possesses a left-wing ideology is commendable.
At least, it is not something that should be condemned.
However, the method he employs in this book is not at all impartial nor scientific.
Fairness begins with eliminating all preconceptions, and being scientific means judging matters inductively rather than deductively.

Even if someone were to select only canines or sharpened bones from among human remains excavated from the earth and conclude that humans are carnivorous beasts, we cannot regard such a conclusion as fair or scientific.

Stone selected and presented many documents and reports from among official records and media coverage that were particularly oriented toward finding the American authorities and South Korean side guilty.

Even in the case of an incident where a beggar stole a single radish from a greengrocer’s storefront, the perceptions and reports of those who saw or heard about it differed considerably from one another.

Official documents and reports concerning large-scale, complex incidents like the Korean War very often contradict or conflict with one another.
That is unavoidable to some extent, and I do not think that is reason enough to conclude that all official documents and reports are malicious frame-ups—schemes.

Of course, I do not possess proof that the U.S. authorities’ statements regarding the Korean War are true, nor do I believe them to be true.
Even after reading this book, I could not come to believe that the truth was the opposite.
That was not because I intentionally sought to be malicious, but simply because I humbly wished to know the truth.
And according to you, I "remained unenlightened."
“You have written, ‘Such a person must be called an idiot.’”
Truly, I felt desolate.

I am quite a foolish person.
I am fully aware of that, but I have rarely been called an idiot by others.
Therefore, being told that I must be an idiot—to be honest, I was quite upset.

Moreover, by what reasoning—and under what authority—does this person called Shimizu write such audacious claims? Within this manner of expression lies a threatening resonance, as though pressuring people to uncritically accept what is written in this book and believe that the Korean War was provoked by America and South Korea.
In fact, there are several pure-hearted young men within my acquaintance alone who, through reading this book, have recklessly come to believe precisely that.
Thus, speaking of all Japan, I have come to think that such people might amount to a considerable number.
Then, I could not remain merely feeling dejected or upset—gradually, I grew angry.

Certainly, I may be an idiot or something akin to one.
And you are no idiot, but a wise man.
Since idiots occasionally spout nonsense, I beg your forbearance.

Those who adopt perspectives and writing methods like Stone’s—and those who make pronouncements about Stone’s book as you have—we idiots call demagogues.
A demagogue is one who, regarding matters of grave public concern, possesses no evidence sufficient to objectively determine the truth nor makes earnest effort to obtain it; who hastily, deliberately, or with exaggeration declares such-and-such to be the truth; and who thereby drags multitudes into erroneous judgments and sentiments to serve the interests of themselves or their particular ideology or faction.
I believe Stone engages in such conduct—and I believe you too engage in it, having declared that Stone’s book proves “the war was instigated by South Korea and America.”

In this case, I certainly do not think you are intentionally engaging in demagoguery.
In other words, I do not believe you wrote such things by falsifying your own feelings or understanding.
It must be that you wrote it because you honestly believed so.
However, if that were true, it would lead to a strange situation. You are such an intelligent person and a first-rate social "scientist."
You have likely read a hundred times as many books as someone like me.
Moreover, you are likely someone who can read them in a "scientific" manner two hundred times more than someone like me.
What manner of reading did you apply to Stone’s work as a whole that led you to judge it as proof of the South Korean and American sides’ guilt?

What I want to question is this very point.

Is it not possible that you had long harbored the desire to believe—perhaps for other reasons—that the Korean War was caused by provocation from the South Korean side and the American side?
Did not Stone’s book fit perfectly into that hope?
Therefore, having lost the capacity to examine it scientifically, did you not fall into uncritical acceptance?
No matter how wise a scholar may be, once blinded by their own subjectivity, they will apparently do such things.
Things that even an idiot would not do.

It was said that you possessed an extraordinarily great influence among the Japanese public. When you conducted lecture tours, terrifyingly large crowds would flock to you and fervently embrace what you said—a phenomenon you yourself had documented. Considering this, one could surmise that a considerable number of people—unaware that your aforementioned statements about the Korean War constituted demagoguery, and failing to recognize them as such—would likely be dragged along by your opinions. This would become a motive for our Japanese public to ally with or oppose either of the Eastern and Western blocs without clear justification, thereby splitting them into two factions without necessity or inevitability. At the very least, it would cause pointless confusion. You were engaged in such conduct.

Moreover, the issue being addressed is no small matter.
The Korean problem is no longer an event that we can continue to overlook as a civil war in some country across the sea.
In truth, it constitutes a problem inherent within our own Japan—one that in Korea unfortunately developed into full-scale war due to various reasons.
However, I want this war alone to cease at the earliest possible moment.
Consequently, we must prevent this same issue in Japan from escalating into anything resembling warfare under any circumstances.
We must undertake such efforts.
Therefore I believe we must approach this matter with utmost caution.

We naturally do not wish to become fodder for the peddling of street advertisers belonging to either Eastern or Western blocs; nor can we abandon [the issue] after being manipulated by scholars who, having grown excessively subjective, commit acts even an idiot would avoid.

No—the Korean War may also be described as the focal point where the confrontational relationship between the Eastern and Western blocs in today’s world reaches its sharpest concentration, rendering it not merely a critical matter for Koreans and Japanese alone, but a grave issue for the entire world.
All this—and more—you must surely comprehend a hundredfold.
Why then would you make such an absolute declaration?
I implore you to elucidate your rationale.
Or do you hold additional evidence capable of proving that the conclusion presented in Stone’s work corresponds to fact?
If such evidence exists, I demand you produce it.
Should you prove unable to present this evidence while simultaneously refusing to retract your statement on the aforementioned obi strip, then I—and those of my ilk—must regrettably conclude that you are nothing less than a consummate huckster.

If you wonder why I am being so insistent, there is no other reason.
If it were true that the Korean War's outbreak resulted from provocation and conspiracy by America and the South Korean side—as Stone seeks to assert and as you affirm—and if I were to obtain conclusive evidence of this truth, then from that very moment I myself would have no choice but to condemn and protest America and the South Korean side, as that is what I desire to do.
That alone is the reason.

If, by any chance, matters were to develop in that manner, then insofar as this issue is concerned, I would stand as one comrade among yourself and Stone; I must ask you to allow me to occupy the humblest seat among those ranks.

If instead it became evident that the truth contradicted what Stone and you assert, we would have no choice but to censure you not simply as a street advertiser, but as a harmful figure who rends us Japanese asunder and propagates chaos.

2

Mr. Shimizu Ikutaro

What I noticed upon rereading over a dozen of your essays this time was that they—both collectively and individually—maintained a markedly anti-American tenor.
This was not mere anti-American sentiment, but opinions presented with clear rationale—opinions I found largely persuasive.
Given that Japan remained under UN forces (predominantly American) for seven years post-defeat and continues to endure substantial American pressure today, we cannot help but harbor resistance in some form; it follows naturally that our discourse centers principally on this reality.

Nevertheless, I could scarcely find anything you had written about the Soviet Union.
Moreover, when synthesizing your opinions on various issues, you appeared to be someone who actively affirmed either the Soviet Union or the Soviet system.
Yet why would you not speak about it?

I understood your reason being limited direct contact with the Soviet Union, but even so, you said far too little.
Why was that?

Harboring such doubts, I came to think the following.
This concerns the aforementioned Stone.
Stone is an American who wrote a book like *Secret History of the Korean War* and published it in America.
America has the freedom to publish such books.
And afterward, I have not heard any accounts of Stone being arrested by American authorities or prosecuted.
And what kind of event would this Korean War be for America and Americans?

On the Korean front, numerous American youths were dying in battle, and a huge amount of American national funds was being expended.
In other words, the Korean War was—strange as this may sound—a “national policy” for the American government, at the very least.
This book, written to denounce the very foundation of that national policy as falsehood and wrongdoing, was published within that country, and neither its publisher nor author faced punishment.
That country was America.
In that regard, I could not help but consider America, despite its various contradictions, to be fundamentally a good country.

In wartime Japan, if someone had used that book to deny and condemn the Pacific War, what would have happened?
Furthermore, in the present Soviet Union, if someone were to write and publish a book denouncing the fundamental falsehoods and wrongdoing of a major war or undertaking being carried out by the Soviet state, what do you suppose would happen?
I feel as though something that sends shivers down one’s spine would befall all those involved.

Have you never once considered such things? If you have considered them, I would like to understand how that awareness has—or has not—affected your apparent pro-Soviet leanings and anti-American views.

The reason I ask such questions is that among Japan’s intelligentsia, there are many who hold a Hottentot-style fixed notion—bypassing any academic or practical process to clearly grasp the matter—that capitalism is inherently evil, and in foreign relations where capitalist countries interact with nations professing socialism or communism, there appears to be a strong tendency to assume that the capitalist country is always at fault.
Among the intelligentsia, this tendency is particularly pronounced among communists and socialists.

The case of the Korean War was no exception.
In my desire to refine my judgment even slightly, I collected opinions from numerous people across various circles, but what stood out most strikingly was that every single one of the many communists I knew—without exception, as if stamped from a mold—immediately asserted that North Korea bore no responsibility for the war's outbreak, and that America and South Korea had conspired to provoke it.
Moreover, hardly any of them attempted to present sufficient evidence for this claim.

It seemed as if they believed countries or forces professing communism or socialism could never possibly commit evil acts. To such an extent did this state of swallowing communism and socialism whole—like ingesting solid gold ingots—persist, this complete belief unburdened by the slightest discomfort or dissatisfaction, that it appeared for the present an unavoidable condition—one inspiring envy rather than contempt. Yet where truth, justice, human equality, tolerance, and science must take root, this mindset proved not merely useless but actively harmful.

What I want to ask you is this: Are you not also one of those belonging to the intelligentsia?
What I am asking is this: Have you never considered that this might indeed be the case?
To put it plainly, when a capitalist country like America comes into conflict with nations proclaiming communism or socialism, is it not true that for you—prior to any investigation, scrutiny, or debate—the capitalist country stands absolutely and unconditionally guilty?

My next question relates to that matter.

I have never pursued advanced specialized studies in sociology or economics.
However, regarding the elementary fundamentals alone, I believe I have studied them with some accuracy.

Though not entirely confident in the reliability of such a judgment of mine, through reading several of your books and numerous magazine articles, I infer that you largely appear to adhere to Marxism.
In your methods of explaining social and economic phenomena, while you have adopted those of scholars other than Marx and subsequent Anglo-American ones to a considerable extent, would not Marxism be your basic and central framework?
What do you think?

It would be better to make this more concrete—for instance, by specifying how particular elements or passages in your papers connect to specific aspects of Marxism—(and given time, I believe I could elaborate this to some extent)—but as I presently lack that luxury, I will forgo such details and simply state that this is how it appears to me. Furthermore, even among your various assertions where certain points may initially seem unconvincing, interpreting them through the framework of your Marxist ideology renders them largely comprehensible. As a scholar endowed with considerable capacity for self-reflection, I presume you yourself are cognizant of this fact.

And those who hold Marxism as their ideology usually become communists or Communist Party members—this is both common and natural.
Especially when that person is a scholar with a strong capacity for logical, scientific, and consistent thinking, it would be unnatural for them not to do so.
You seem to hold Marxism as your ideology, yet you appear to be neither a communist nor a Communist Party member—why is that?
That is what I wish to inquire about.

However, in fact, you might be a communist or Communist Party member.
It may be that I alone do not know this, or that you are concealing it for some reason.
Secret Communist Party members apparently exist—I cannot claim to misunderstand the tactical necessity—so if that were indeed the case, very well; were it true, I would have neither interest nor need to investigate further.
Still, I must say it strikes me as peculiar—absurd even.
For I understand communists are in principle meant to operate openly, and while subjected to various pressures from the current government, today's Japanese Communist Party remains a legally recognized political entity.

Or is it that you—or the group you belong to—are contemplating something far more profound: considering a broad People’s Front centered around the Communist Party in the future, and deliberately keeping you outside the Party until its formation so that you may serve as a pivotal coordinator when the time comes?

Now, in any of these cases, someone like myself ought not expound upon them.
My sole purpose is this: I wish—if possible—to discern with slightly greater clarity which of these scenarios actually applies.
This stems both from my apprehension toward Japan’s foreseeable upheaval and from my ongoing preparations for that very contingency.

You hold great influence over the Japanese masses.
In times of crisis, many among those masses would likely be led by you and march off somewhere.
I myself might well be one of those masses.
Therefore, I wish to know where you intend to lead them, and believe I have the right to demand that knowledge.
Moreover, I consider it the obligation of those who lead the masses to disclose this information.

For example, where Tokuda Kyuichi intended to lead us was clear to us.
It was a communist revolution.
Therefore, those who desired it might as well have been led by Tokuda.

At the destination where they were led, there would be people’s courts to condemn former privileged classes, bourgeoisie, and landlords; a government for the Proletarian Dictatorship; workers’ “happiness” contingent on meeting production quotas; kolkhozes; forced labor camps; secret police executions and torture—and there would be no Statue of Liberty, Ford factories, “freedom to starve,” or liberty to criticize governmental politics however negatively.
This was generally possible to anticipate.

However, where you would lead us—what lies there—I simply cannot grasp clearly. Yet your critique of Japan’s current regime remains scathingly negative across every domain. Within it, regarding each individual problem, you provide almost no opinions or hints of the sort that say, “If we adjust this aspect thusly, such an outcome will follow”—instead, what you offer resembles despair steeped in irony, framed as a formula declaring that everything from root to branch is wrong and that nothing can be mended unless its very foundations are shattered. And beyond that point, it all goes blank, leaving one utterly at a loss for what to do.

As we followed along, agreeing wholeheartedly with your opinion on a certain issue, we found ourselves cast into a place where, having gone some distance, we no longer knew what to do.
But we could not simply remain inactive.
When we tried to do something about it, the logical path we had followed thus far—led by you—appeared to leave no alternative other than the path of communism or practical action as a Communist Party member.
Therefore, there would be some who embarked on that path.
However, it was not necessarily that all were such people.
While approving of communism as an ideology, there were many who could not affirm it as a practical system.
Such people would likely have hesitated and stopped right there, looking around with questioning eyes.

If your presence were discerned there, it would pose no issue.
Yet your form remains absent from that place.
Whether concealed behind people or objects—unseen—you cannot ultimately be located.
That individual might murmur *Hmm...*, entertaining the notion that their erstwhile guide had perhaps been a species of "pimp."

That was the case with me. If you had actually been practicing communism or were a Communist Party member, you would not have appeared to me in that manner, but rather as a proper thinker—regardless of my own inability to agree with communism or the Communist Party. Yet even so, likening someone who appears to be a genuine thinker to a pimp, however occasionally, pained even me. I implore you—declare that you are in truth a communist or Communist Party member. At the very least, disclose your relationship with communism or the Communist Party.

However, perhaps all of my way of thinking like this may be an overestimation.
That is to say, you may not be a Marxist in the true sense at all, but merely someone who has adopted Marxism out of some necessity.
It may be that you do not hold Marxism as an ideology but have merely adopted it as one intellectual tool to explain the world and society.

And yet, your critical words often struck me as too earnest—too fervent—but I have seen someone who would invoke divine punishment through the Catholic God and earnestly berate delinquent youths while not truly believing in Catholicism himself.
If that were indeed the case here, then there would be no issue whatsoever.
It would simply mean you appeared to be nothing more than a mere sophist.

Sophists are everywhere in great numbers, so there’s no particular need to make an issue of them.
Sophists are like skunks—if you meddle with them, your own hands will stink—so I have resolved to withdraw my hands.

3

Mr. Shimizu Ikutaro

You are a brave and tenacious anti-war theorist and opponent of rearmament.
In several papers, you discussed anti-war and rearmament issues from various angles.
Your arguments and methodology were both precise and fervent.
I was in complete agreement with all of them.
I too held opposing views on war and rearmament.
I rejoiced greatly, felt encouraged, and strove to read as deeply as possible.
Then I came to sense what seemed to be a fundamental difference between your opposition and mine.

As I have already written about my own theories of peace and opposition to rearmament in various places, I will refrain from tediously elaborating on them here—they are not born from any ideology I hold or academic knowledge but rather something more instinctive and commonsensical in nature.
To summarize: I oppose any war waged by anyone under any name or rationale, and I oppose any form or degree of armament conducted by anyone against anyone at any time.
Yet yours strikes me as slightly different from this.
That’s right.
It remains merely at the level of a “sense”—I neither clearly comprehend nor can articulate precisely how they differ.
Nevertheless, for me, this is no trivial matter.

The reason I had this sense was likely due to the following two reasons.
The first was that your anti-war theory and opposition to rearmament were inseparable from and developed in tandem with your anti-Americanism.
The second was that, as previously mentioned, you were a Marxist or someone who had largely adopted the methods of Marxism.
Of course, these two reasons were mutually intertwined and could not be considered separately.

I explained the first point.
Japan regained its independence, but that independence remained conditional; there existed a Security Treaty between Japan and America, and within Japan proper lay numerous powerful American military bases.
This meant Japan practically existed under American military power to some degree; simultaneously, were Japan to be rearmed and America—or liberal nations including America—to start a war against another country, Japan would likely be naturally incorporated into their military forces.
Therefore, those who opposed war and rearmament could not help but oppose America and its domination of Japan in practice.
There were many such opponents.
I counted myself among them.

However, there also seem to be many opponents of a different nature.
To clarify how they differ—they are precisely the inverse of those I just described.
These opponents oppose all wars that might be conducted and all war preparations under American initiative because they wish to oppose America—or what they term American capitalism or imperialism.
Needless to say, such opponents abound among anti-American ideologues.
To put it another way—they stand aligned with Soviet bloc nations.
I believe nearly all Marxists, Communist Party members, and Communist Party sympathizers fall into this category.

For these people, most of what the liberal nations—particularly America, which led them—did was disagreeable.
Of course, above all, they found its military power disagreeable.
That was, in a sense, natural.
For these people, rather than finding war itself disagreeable—and as a precursor to such matters—what they found disagreeable was America attacking or defeating Soviet bloc countries in any future wars that might arise.
And you too appeared to me as one of those opponents.
And I thought that this fact had a strong connection to you being a Marxist or an adopter of Marxism, which I had presented as the second reason.

And I imagined: What would have happened had it been the Soviet Army instead of the American Army occupying Japan upon its defeat? What would have become of the former type of opponents? What would have become of the latter type? Various scenarios and forms could be envisioned—complex and subtle, defying easy categorization.

Yet I sensed with considerable likelihood that most of those latter opponents might not have opposed war or rearmament in their current form and meaning. And how would you have conducted yourself? Would you not have refrained from opposing war and rearmament as you do now? Might you instead have actively endorsed them? Though impertinent, this conjecture stems not from malice but clear reasoning. What constitutes this reason? Precisely this forms the crux of explaining the second point.

This is because within Marxism=Communism's practical tenets, force must inevitably be adopted as a necessity arising from its theoretical system.
Communist revolutionary theory does not exist here while force exists over there, only to be brought here when revolution demands it.
Force resides within the theory itself—a product necessarily born from that theory.
This force might be called violence when manifested through individual acts, or war when activated on a grand scale.
However, it must always serve proletarian class liberation and dictatorial power establishment according to doctrinal requirements.

If such force=violence=war exists, then they actively affirm it.
It is not that there are communists who affirm force=violence=war, but rather that the very fact of being a communist inherently entails affirming force=war.
Such an ideology is Marxism=Communism.

While I believe I could prove this in my own way by citing theories from Marxist texts and theorists—ranging from economic to political struggles regarding class struggle, as well as several theories on imperialist wars and others—I currently lack the time to do so, and addressing such matters to you would be as unnecessary as preaching to the Buddha.

In short, Marxism is not something that can oppose all wars, nor does it oppose them.
On the contrary, it actively supports certain types of wars and indeed does so.
In their various charters, what invariably appears as the grammatical subject is "workers, peasants, and soldiers."

Practically speaking too, Marxism=Communism is an ideology of force.
One need only examine all communist movements across nations and regions (the major waves among them being revolutions).
They are always preceded by force.
They are accompanied by violence.
They are backed by military power.
This does not mean communists uniformly love war.
When reaching a stage involving concrete relations, the very practice of communism becomes materialized within military force.
It is not that communists' hands grasp sabers.
The hands of communists themselves, at times, become sabers.
In writing the above metaphorically for brevity's sake, I could write more rigorously and empirically if required.

Now, for that reason, both theoretically and practically, Marxism=Communism and absolute pacifism are utterly incompatible. Absolute pacifism is an ideology that opposes any war of any kind conducted under any name solely on the grounds that it is war. When Marxist Communists take up peace—even when the individual in question’s subjective intentions are utterly sincere—it is not because of reasons such as truth or justice, but rather because at that time, it was the most efficient means available. Because it was the most effective tactic. Therefore, at some point, under certain circumstances, no matter how ardently and sincerely Marxist Communists may work for peace, if objective circumstances command them to do so, they will abandon peace and take up war with astonishing speed and detachment.

This fact has been demonstrated ad nauseam through Communists’ actions across global events of the past two to three decades. Of course, it has also manifested to some degree among Japanese Communists. I do not mean to condemn this here and now. I simply state that I regard such individuals as Communists.

As previously noted, you strike me as someone who has adopted Marxism or Marxist principles to some extent. Yet you ardently advocate peace theories, opposition to war, and resistance to rearmament—so fervently that it becomes difficult to dismiss this as mere temporary tactics; you appear utterly sincere. If this is true, what relationship exists between this stance and the Marxist theory you espouse? How do these two elements connect, and where do they diverge? Or could your peace movement be something akin to an “independent vanguard” emerging from strategic perspectives—whether your own or those of your affiliated faction?

I too am an opponent of war and an opponent of rearmament.
However, I do not oppose war and military preparedness as temporary tactics or strategies.
Nor do I sentimentally dream of a world where war is absent and military preparedness unnecessary.
While I am not as paranoid as American politicians who cling to the delusion that the Soviet Union perpetually schemes to invade liberal democracies, neither am I naïve enough to fanatically believe there exists absolutely no possibility of Soviet invasion even with zero military preparedness.

For my opposition to war and rearmament, I am always willing to cooperate with those who similarly oppose them, yet at the same time, it is precisely for this reason that I cannot place long-term trust in those who oppose them merely as a temporary tactic.

It does not seem to me that there are absolutely no absolute opponents of war among Japanese Marxists and Communists.
However, I see that the majority are now opposing [war and rearmament] as a temporary tactic.
In other words, their current basic policy is centered on "anti-Americanism."
And Japan is now being incorporated into America’s military force.
Moreover, that military force is directed toward the Soviet bloc nations as hypothetical enemies.

Therefore, at present, by advocating anti-war and opposition to rearmament within Japan and guiding the public in that direction, one could most effectively achieve anti-American and pro-Soviet outcomes—I observe that such anti-war advocates and opponents of rearmament are exceedingly numerous.
It seemed to me that should circumstances shift further or reverse, such individuals would abandon their opposition and instead become pro-war advocates or rearmament supporters.
This amounts to what might be termed a 180-degree reversal through strategic tactics.
The Communists have proven remarkably skillful at this.
There are countless examples, but among them, the most glaring was how during World War II—after initially opposing Nazi Germany—the Soviet Union forged a pact with them only to resume hostilities later, alongside their conduct toward Japan on the war’s eve; these remain impossible to forget.

Although not as striking，Japanese Communists also dabbled in similar things from time to time.
Such things may appear base in the eyes of us non-communists depending on the situation，but for communists，they are likely only natural.
Therefore，whenever tactical necessity arose，they would likely resort to such tactics now and then.
In other words，when Communists determined that doing so would benefit Soviet bloc nations，they might cease advocating opposition to war or rearmament and instead actively embark on the rearmament movement.
The likelihood of that happening was extremely strong.

If that were to happen, what would you do?
Will you remain an anti-war advocate and opponent of rearmament as before?
“Or will you too perform a 180-degree reversal and become a pro-war advocate and supporter of rearmament?”
And it is while keeping in mind that you are, as previously stated, likely a Marxist or at least a partial adherent of Marxism that I pose this question.

As you can see, I am posing these questions after layering “if” upon “if.”
This must appear somewhat comical.
However, there exists a reason for me to raise such questions.
It goes as follows.
If that were to occur and you could remain an anti-war advocate as before, there would be no issue. But should you execute a 180-degree reversal, what would become of the masses who have been influenced and guided by your anti-war arguments—those who have followed in your wake until now?

Those who could switch allegiances as you might would fare well enough.
Those incapable of such reversal would inevitably suffer greatly.
As these people are my compatriots, I knew witnessing their plight would pain me.
Both they and I wished to spare ourselves such anguish whenever possible.
Nor would this remain mere personal suffering—Japan itself would likely descend into turmoil.
If such outcomes could be prevented, I believed we ought to prevent them.
This being so, I felt compelled to determine now whether your anti-war stance was absolute or conditional—and thought you surely bore some responsibility to clarify this—but what say you?

Needless to say, I wish to know these matters in connection with what I wrote in sections 1 and 2.

In truth, contemporary Japan contains no small number of scholars and thinkers who adopt attitudes strikingly similar to yours or voice opinions much like your own—and while I would indeed wish to question such individuals one after another if circumstances required—it was because you appeared most conspicuous among them that I have addressed this inquiry to you.

Though I may have spoken impolitely at times, I ask that you overlook such discourtesies and favor me with your reply, as my sole intent has been to gain clarity—nothing more.

(January 1953)