PREFACE Looking towards the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, we can see continual progress of plans for an “Emergency Government” that remind one of the tyranny of the pre-war government that organized itself under the same pretext. Before the war under the rule of the Konoe Cabinet’s Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the […]
PREFACE
Looking towards the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, we can see continual progress of plans for an “Emergency Government” that remind one of the tyranny of the pre-war government that organized itself under the same pretext. Before the war under the rule of the Konoe Cabinet’s Imperial Rule Assistance Association, the “Emergency Government” quickly gave way to a “War Preparation Government”, then just “War Government.” These sealed the eyes and ears of the people, expanded the invasion of China, and plunged us into a war over the Pacific Ocean. What most of all kept people in ignorance, glorified the war, and made people serve its cause was the Japanese mass media.
Today the goal of the LDP, who has inherited this politics and pushes for this “Emergency Government”, is to trample on the non-agression clause as written in Article 9 of the constitution and deploy Japanese self-defense forces overseas. However, among today’s mass media, not only is criticism towards these dangerous measures weak, publications like the Yomiuri Newspaper have created a “Constitution Research Council” to perform a leading role in advocating for overseas troop deployments. In this way, the media as a whole has taken up an agenda of protecting reactionary politics.
This book was made taking interviews published in Bunka Hyouron from the 1993 January to the 1993 March issues and then making broad additions and revisions. Subjects include the point of departure for the Yomiuri Newspaper Struggle, the newspapers’ responsibility for the war, and the pledge I made to never repeat those mistakes. While the interviews in the magazine traced the reasoning of the struggle in a brief way, this book aims to make clearer the pursuit of holding the newspaper responsible for the war. I intentionally wished to question today’s media, who have gone farther and farther away from journalism’s fundamental mission of bringing truth to the people.
I would like to give special thanks to Takao Sekiguchi (Akahata Vice Editor) and Yoshio Shiwa (Shinnihon Publishing) for helping me to write and publish this book.
June 1994
Tarou Miyamoto
I. WHAT WAS THE YOMIURI LABOR STRUGGLE?
–Seeing the recent phenomenon of standardization and a shift to the right among newspapers, there are many that question whether newspapers remember the crimes of cooperation they committed leading up to the war, whether they are committed to not driving the country to war again, and whether they remember the initial resolution that rose from the ruins. This book records the experience of Tarou Miyamoto who worked as a reporter for the Yomiuri Newspaper before, during, and after the war and participated from September 1945 to October 1946 in the Yomiuri Newspaper labor struggle. I ask Miyamoto about the historically important struggle of newspaper workers to take the judgment of war responsibility into their own hands and the lessons from this struggle that can be used today. It seems to me to be the case that even those who just recognize the name of the Yomiuri Struggle are decreasing in the current generation.
So first I would like to ask in a general way if you could introduce what characterized this struggle.
The War Aftermath– The People’s Anger Explodes
Miyamoto: This is only how I remember it but, in terms of what kind of labor struggle the Yomiuri Struggle was and what kind of position it has in terms of post-war history, it’s been close to 50 years now since then, so it’s natural that most young people today don’t know about it. At the end of those 15 years of war, when Japanese Imperialism accepted the Potsdam Declaration and surrendered to the United States, Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union, both the land and the people of Japan were in really dire straights. From the atomic bombing to the longer period of air raids, the ruin and confusion within Japan was difficult to put into words. However, the newspapers that had been fanning the flames of war up to that point took up the banner of “Protecting and Maintaining the National Polity” (kokutaigoji) , or in other words, continuing to protect the Imperial System. During that time there was a boom of editorials that argued that everyone must follow the line decreed by the emperor ending the war, such as “Reconsolidate the Heart of the Nation in the Emperor” (omikokoro ni kiitsu suru). Both those in the government and military had not reflected even a little over the suffering they inflicted upon the Japanese people. And even when the US Occupation Army came, the various parties that are the predecessors of today’s Socialist Party and Liberal Democratic Party, along with the major monopolies, dedicated themselves to preserving their power while dealing with the war aftermath through their reactionary forces. While this was going on, despite the poverty of normal people, the government and monopolies were also engaging in sabotage by hiding both consumer and production goods confiscated during the war. So when General Macarthur finally arrived as the commander of the occupying forces, everyone was trembling in fear wondering what direction they would take. It was that sort of situation.
–At this time there was the expectation that Japanese people would explode in anger against the ruling class over life conditions right?
Miyamoto: Yes, at that time anger was spreading among people. At the forefront of this anger was the working class who were the first to engage in mass struggle. The Yomiuri Struggle occurred during this initial period. Researchers say the first period of post-war labor struggles was from August of 1945 to the middle of 1946, and in this period were the struggles at Yomiuri Newspaper, Keisei Electric Trains, and the Mitsubishi Bibai Coal Mines in Hokkaido. After that, from the middle of 1946 to General Macarthur’s banning of the general strike on February 2nd 1947 was the second period. This included the sailor’s strike and struggles at Japanese National Railways, Nidec, Orient Watch Co., Toshiba, and Komatsu. And then from the general strike was the third period which included the struggle at the movie company Toho of which it was said that “everyone was there but the battleships.” From there, along with workers, people of various other classes began standing up in anger against the government over quality of life issues and demanding that the government hand over rice and other hidden goods. So at the very beginning of all of these movements was the Yomiuri Struggle.
–Recently Kiyoshi Yamamoto at the Tokyo University Institute of Social Science has been gathering materials and analyzing the struggle in detail. Several books from journalists have also been published about the subject. At that time, what job did you have at Yomiuri?
Five Points Regarding the Yomiuri Struggle
Directly after the war, I was the Vice Editor of the Politics and Economics Section and in that position participated in the Yomiuri Struggle from the very beginning. More specifically, I was one of those who participated in its entirety, from the initial struggle that started on September 13 1945 to the second struggle that ended on October 18 1946. Because of this I was able to help Professor Yamamoto by participating in three recorded interviews over the course of three months in 1983.
In describing the nature of the Yomiuri Struggle, I would like to separate its characteristics into five points. The first is that it was both the earliest post-war labor struggle and the one that lasted the longest. The first struggle began less than a month after the war’s end on September 13, and lasted until December 12 of that year, a total of 90 days. The second struggle began on June 5 of the next year, and lasted until October 18, a little over 130 days.
The second point is that the workers had three demands. These were (1) pursuing prosecution of war responsibility against Shouriki Matsutarou and other executives, as well as their resignations, (2) democratization of the company and (3) improvements in the treatment of workers. These three foundational demands remained unchanged throughout both struggles. I’ll get more into this later but, Shouriki Matsutarou, often called “The One Man Executive” or just “dictator”, worked closely with the core of Hideki Tojo’s government putting the paper in service of the war. Pursuing responsibility for this, including thorough self-reflection and an apology to the Japanese people, was the core of worker’s demands. In line with Shouriki’s dictatorial style, he pursued cut-throat competition with Asahi and Mainichi newspapers, paying the cheapest wages in the newspaper industry with the worst working conditions. As a result of indignation over this treatment came these demands, pursuing both improved conditions and the democratization of the company organization and management.
The third point is the large difference, related to the political conditions of the occupation, between the first and second struggles. During the time the first struggle was fought, although the almighty occupation forces (GHQ) were the chief political power, because the occupation was still in the initial stages they were still bound by the platform outlined in the Potsdam Declaration. Therefore, even in the GHQ directed by General Macarthur and even if this was still an occupation, there were progressive measures taken in response to public opinion and democratic movements both worldwide and in Japan.
Particularly symbolic was Shouriki Matsutarou being arrested and thrown into Sugamo Prison as a war crime suspect, dramatically in the middle of the first struggle. Encouraged by this move, workers at Yomiuri, including reporters, salesmen, accountants, and printers came together to form the first post-war labor union and seized editorial rights as the struggle was still happening. In other words this was a struggle over who controls production, or “self-management” as it was called. At the time this meant we controlled a paper with around 2 million readers. With this platform we pursued prosecution for war crimes, published criticism of Shouriki, and pushed for unionization and the revelation of goods hidden by the government and other related campaigns. Really exceptional things were happening then.
The second struggle was fought on the basis of totally different relationship with the occupation. This was the time of the first post-war May Day and the “Food May Day” (shokuryou meidei on May 19, also known as shokuryou kiki toppa kokumin taikai “People’s Rally to End the Food Crisis”), when various citizen’s struggles were booming and slogans like “Democratic Government established by the Democratic Movement” were made, as well as the transition period between the Shidehara and Yoshida cabinets. In Asia the Chinese Revolution was making great progress. And so in the middle of all this, General Macarthur was shaken by the expansion of the democratic movements and quickly changed his attitude. On May 15, at the Allied Council for Japan, the US representative George Atcheson declared that “We will not welcome communism”. Continuing this, General Macarthur issued a ban on demonstrations. Immediately after, the GHQ added a direct attack on the workers at Yomiuri. First it intervened by pressuring the newspaper to fire reporters for articles that were deemed as problematic, along with Suzuki Toumin and 5 other leaders of the union. The second struggle began as counter-attack against this. To put it briefly, the second struggle was a confrontation against the direct interference of the GHQ and the violent oppression by Prime Minister Yoshida, such as the deployment of 300 riot police against Yomiuri workers. During this, the union split in two, and unlike the initial self-management struggle took up the tactic of striking, stopping publication for four days in the first large newspaper strike in Japanese history.
The fourth point is that while the strike was happening, we were forced to leave the workplace by the violence of the company union and shop owners, and we made a base we called “The Burned Building” (shoubiru) next to the main office that became a gathering of various labor unions to support and join struggles with other democratic organizations. Professor Yamamoto wrote “How the Yomiuri Struggle Committee really left an indelible mark in history was this form of joint struggle.” And even now, what really draws people to this subject is the fight during the latter half of the second struggle.
As a result of the aggressive reactionary shift by the Yoshida cabinet with support from the GHQ, mass firings were announced in key industries such as the national railways and shipping. In response the Yomiuri Struggle Group formed a Joint Struggle Committee with railway workers and sailors, inserted the Yomiuri Youth League in their workplace organizations, and contributed to the Mass Firings Withdrawal Struggle. Immediately after, the Japan Newspapers Communication and Broadcasting Union (nihon shinbun tsuushin housou roudou kumiai, also known as shinbun tanitsu) decided on a “Newpaper General Strike” with the satisfaction of the Yomiuri worker’s demands among its goals. Although only two or three unions threw themselves into the struggle, employees related to mass communications from throughout the country prepared for the strike, struggled at their workplaces, and intermingled considerably. Taking this joint struggle as a first step, the recently founded All Japan Congress of Industrial Unions, or Sanbetsu, began what was called the “October Struggle”. This dealt a great blow to the Yoshida counterattack, and it could be said that the Yomiuri Struggle Committee served in a vanguard role.
The fifth point I want to cover is the flow of historical developments that form the background of the Yomiuri Struggle. In much of the literature up until now, one of the main points is that as a result of President Shouriki’s war cooperation and oppression, as well as the unusually large amount of veterans from left wing movements in the newspaper, there was a direct confrontation between the two parties. It might be the case that at the time, there were many reporters and workers who had in their student days participated in left wing movements and had gotten expelled, or those who had at other companies took part in labor struggles and were thus fired. And it can’t be denied that for better or for worse those reporters and workers performed a large role. However, within those ranks there were also those who sided with the company and lead the split of the union, so to over-emphasize that point is very likely to lead some to overlook certain large historical developments.
Among these developments, the guiding executives of the Japanese Communist Party, who thoroughly opposed the war of invasion, who fought for the Japanese people’s democratic rights and the protection of their livelihoods while not yielding to barbaric oppression, had been released from prison and for the first time, began to act as a public organization. The Potsdam Declaration, which reflected the voice of those throughout the world who opposed war and fascism, confronted the Japanese people as well. In response to that voice, it was the self-conscious people who first woke up. And then when the war ended, as I mentioned before, the Japanese ruling classes, who drove the people to war and made them suffer, did not reflect and re-established themselves under the banner of protecting the national polity. Against them there was a great wave of anger among the people, and with the working class in the lead, people of various classes stood up. The fight of Yomiuri’s 1800 employees is but a small part of that great wave. And if we ask what was at its center, it was a trust and hope towards the Japanese Communist Party that opposed the war and went on fighting without flinching, coming to life in the hearts of the Japanese people.