The Cultural Trade Deficit: Japanese Intellectuals, Let’s Speak Out in English

It’s often said that the Japanese cultural trade deficit is very large.

Japanese intellectuals who can speak foreign languages have been earning money by bringing foreign knowledge and information into Japan. Most of them haven’t been interested in expressing their thoughts to the world, because it is much easier for them to import foreign knowledge and sell it in Japan.

It’s might not be bad that there are rich collections of Japanese translations of foreign books, but there are much fewer translations of Japanese books. Haruki Murakami is a complete exception.

Through the experience of keeping a blog in English I have realized that Japanese intellectuals should speak out in English to the world much more.

Firstly, remarks by Japanese intellectuals in English have value because of their scarcity at this time. When I write in English on my blog, I found that my opinion was unique because of my Japanese origin, even if I don’t try intentionally insisting on a Japanese point of views. We, as Japanese intellectuals, have a duty to provide our unique point of views to the world.

Now, many non-Western countries fail to build democratic governments. Japan, as a non-Western country, has the experiences of importing the concept of democracy from the West and developing our own democratic government; Japanese intellectuals could point out factors which make non-Western countries fail in building democratic governments that Western intellectuals can't see.

Secondly, we could make our opinions more sophisticated by expressing them in English. When we speak in English to the world, we have to explain things that are obvious for Japanese people. This forces us to think about our fundamental assumptions.

In my blog, I wrote the entry "Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?" Certainly I could think much more deeply about Japanese government by that than writing it in Japanese.

Japanese intellectuals, let’s speak out in English!

The Ideal That the Country Japan Was Founded on

I don’t know why NHK broadcasted the series of Oliver Stone’s documentary “Untold History of the United State” at the end of the year. Anyway I watched Episode 7, which was about the Vietnam War.

Of course, Oliver Stone severely criticized LBJ and Richard Nixon. From my stand point of view, they should be blamed for mismanagement about Vietnam War, but at the same time they also made some achievements, for example LBJ’s the Great Society’s programs and Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.

It is interesting for me as a Japanese to know that Oliver Stone and Ronald Reagan seemed to believe in the same justice of America. Ronald Reagan insisted that his policy embodied the ideal of the U.S., but Oliver Stone thought that he betrayed it. In the documentary, Oliver Stone quoted the words of John Adams, which represented the ideal that the U.S. was founded on, in order to blame Richard Nixon.

There are many people who criticized the government and politicians in Japan, too. But both of them don’t seem to have the common ideal, just like what Oliver Stone and Ronald Reagan do. Japanese people ever have had the ideal that the country Japan is founded on, haven’t they?

American people think the United States of America as an artificial product, which was made in order to achieve their ideal, but Japanese people think the country Japan as a natural product, which has existed for many years.

Democracy is the ideal for the United States of America, but it is just one of the political systems for Japan. Winston Churchill said,“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Japanese people could understand what he meant.

I wrote, “Is Japan really a democratic country? The answer is that "yes, it is formally." in the entry “Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?”

Although Japan is now a democratic country, Japanese people don’t believe in the ideal of democracy. There is a country that doesn’t have the ideal that it was founded on.

Superman and the 442nd Regimental Combat team

The movie “Batman vs. Superman,” which is a sequel of “Man of Steel,” will be out in July 2015.

Batman and Superman are complete opposites in every aspect. Batman is the dark knight, but on the other hand the sun makes Superman a super hero. Bruce Wayne is a son of a millionaire in Gotham City, whose model is obviously New York City, but Clark Kent grew up in Smallville, Kansas.

It is most interesting that Superman who was born in the Planet Krypton is very patriotic, but Batman who is a born American doesn’t believe in his government.

In Frank Miller’s comics “Batman: the Dark Knight Returns,” Batman said to Superman, “You always say yes to anyone with a badge or a flag. No good,” while fighting against each other.

Superman’s patriotism reminds me the motto of the 442nd Regimental Combat team, “Go for Broke.”

In the period of World War II, Japanese American citizens in the U.S. were interned in camps, because they were thought to be anti-American, even though they had American citizenship.

Most members of the 442nd Regimental Combat team were young Japanese Americans whose parents were interned. They had to prove that they were the true Americans, and they fought bravely in Europe in World War II.

After Superman fought for life to save America and the Planet Earth, at the end of “Man of Steel,” General Swanwick talked with Superman.

General Swanwick: Then I'll ask the obvious question: How do we know you won't one day act against America's interests.
Superman: I grew up in Kansas, General. It's about as American as it gets. Look, I'm here to help. But it has to be on my own terms. And you have to convince Washington of that.
General Swanwick: Even if I were willing to try, what makes you think they'd listen?
Superman: I don't know, General. I guess I'll just have to trust you.

Superman has to keep trying to trust American people, so he keeps fighting for Americans like the 442nd Regimental Combat team, because he was born in a foreign planet.

The Vulnerability of Democracy

In Egypt, the conflict between the coup regime by the Egyptian army and the Muslim Brotherhood is becomming more severe.

I think that the deposed president, Mohamed Morsi, has legitimacy, because it was he who elected through the legitimate election, and the suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood by the current government is injustice.

In fact, democracy is quite vulnerable in many times and countries.

Before World War II, the democracy in Japan was killed by Japanese Army’s coups like Egypt nowadays.

In a previous entry “Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?” I wrote as below.

Is Japan really a democratic country? The answer is that "yes, it is formally."
…
If Japan is a democratic country, we should fight against them ("the nuclear village") in order to realize our own will. We, Japanese people, don't believe in the ideal of democracy, do we? I'm now deeply skeptical.”

Democratic constitutions and laws alone cannot guarantee democracy. The Nazi party arose out of the Weimar Republic. People in a country should believe in and save democracy.

But the Egyptian people don’t seem to believe in democracy. If they did so, the opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood would support the deposed president Morsi in order to save the Egyptian democracy. But they don’t do so just like the Japanese people before the World War II.

I’m now deeply wondering if democratic regime can be established universally. 

Someday, Egypt will be a democratic country, won’t it? The Egyptian people really do want democracy, don’t they?

Can the Japanese Government Promote “Cool Japan” policy and Japanese “soft power?”

Joseph Nye, a political scientist and a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the U.S., pointed out the importance of “soft power” in international politics.

Nye defined “power” as the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes you want. He wrote that there were two types of power, “hard power” and “soft power.” Diplomats mainly have been paying attention on “hard power”, which is the use of coercion and payment, but Nye insisted that “soft power,” which the use of attraction, was more important than “hard power.”

I translated Haruki Murakami’s speech at the Catalonia international prize into English in the entry “Haruki Murakami's Speech on Catalonia International Prize: As an Unrealistic Dreamer.” Kevin, who is managing the website “Senrinomich,” started the project of translating this speech, and now it was translated into thirteen languages.

After the earthquake and the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant, we, Japanese people, have been thinking about nuclear power deeply, but I think that people abroad have not heard much about what we have been thinking.

Although I knew that Haruki Murakami was popular in the world, I was really surprised that people from so many countries wanted to read his speech. When he made a speech about what Japanese people think, people in the world were willing to hear it.

The existence of Haruki Murakami is just Japanese “soft power.”

Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry of Japan is promoting “Cool Japan” Policy. They are trying to make Japanese culture more popular in the world and promote Japanese “soft power.”

But I strongly doubt that the government can promote them.

Haruki Murakami has “soft power,” just because he wrote novels that people in the world love. Japanese government has nothing to do with his works. Hayao Miyazaki, Akira Toriyama, Shigeru Miyamoto were not supported by the government, either.

I don’t believe that the government can find such people at all. Nobody thought that they would be success in the world, before they actually became popular across the world. The next person who wields this “soft power” will appear out of the wood works, a place which can't be predicted. How will the government support them?

The Accident of Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Plants and the Essence of Failure

Although it is two years after the Great East Japan Earthquake, the accident of Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plants has not yet finished.

Many reports and books about this accident have been published in these two years and recently I read several of them. I basically agree with the report of the NAIIC (The National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission), and if you want to know more about this accident, you should read the executive summary of this report.

This report pointed out about the root causes of this accident as follows.

The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements—such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release.
…
From TEPCO’s perspective, new regulations would have interfered with plant operations and weakened their stance in potential lawsuits. That was enough motivation for TEPCO to aggressively oppose new safety regulations and draw out negotiations with regulators via the Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC). The regulators should have taken a strong position on behalf of the public, but failed to do so. As they had firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively create new regulations.

I completely agree with this remark.

Apparently TEPCO and the regulatory bodies knew the vulnerability of Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plants to tsunami before the earthquake, but they did nothing about it. The safety regulation of nuclear plants were based on the premise that the leakage of radiation from the site of nuclear plants could be prevented, so they didn’t prepare for such a severe accident.

I wrote about “the nuclear village” in the entry “Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?” 

The sub-government, which consists of some politicians, bureaucrats, electrical power companies, nuclear industries and specialists in nuclear power, has been controlling the nuclear policy in Japan, and Japanese people have almost no influence over it. A "Sub-government" is a group, usually consisting of politicians, bureaucrats and special interests, which controls public policy in a particular area in order to pursue their own interests. The "Military-industry complex" in the USA is a typical sub-government. The sub-government of the nuclear industry in Japan is called "the nuclear village."

I’ve read the book “the Essence of Failure: the Study of the Japanese Army in the Light of Organizational Theory,” which is about the cause of failure of the Japanese army in the Pacific War. I was surprised that the problems of the Japanese army, which were pointed out in this book, were so common with the problems of “the nuclear village” in this accident.

The officers in the Japanese army placed more value on their personal relationships than their organization goals, so they often couldn’t make a rational decision, which would be disadvantageous to some of them. They had been covering up for each other, and in the end they lost the Pacific war.

In “the nuclear village,” they couldn’t make a new safety regulation in order to prepare a sever accident, because the “new regulations would have interfered with plant operations and weakened their stance in potential lawsuits,” and in the end they caused this accident.

The Fukushima fifty and Masao Yoshida, the general manager of Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plants, were quite brave. Even though they made mistakes, I think that it couldn’t be helped, because the site was really confused. The point was lack of preparation.

In the book “the Essence of Failure,” the words of Georgi Zhukov, who was a commander of the Soviet army, were quoted.

In the Japanese army, sergeants are tough and brave, and junior officers make a fanatically tough fight, but senior officers are ineffective.

Nothing has changed.

This time we, the Japanese people, should learn a lesson from this accident and MUST NOT do the same thing again.

Let's Spend A Little More Time Leaving Everybody Alone: Clint Eastwood and Me

Although I have only a vague memory of it, it might be first time to see Clint Eastwood in the movie "For A Few Dollars More," when I was a small child. At that time cheap Spaghetti Western movies were broadcasted on TV in Japan again and again, and I was crazy about Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef.

And then I've watched "Dirty Harry" so many times on TV. The first his movie I watched in a theater was "Escape from Alcatraz", when I went to Junior high school.

I have been a big fan of Clint Eastwood almost for forty years. After "Dirty Harry", constantly he made good movies, for example "The Gauntlet," "Pale Rider," and "Bird", though, he was considered as a second grade action star.

After he won the Academy Award for "Unforgiven," suddenly he became considered as one of masters. Of course I was glad, but at the same time I thought that he hadn't changed at all. I love his Western movie "Pale Rider" much more than the Academy Award winning "Unforgiven." Before "Unforgiven", he made many good movies, and after it, he continued to make good movies.

His latest movie "J. Edgar" wasn't successful, but I think that it is much better than most critics said it was.

I read an interview about "J. Edgar" on the GQmagazine, and he talked about business and movies as follows.

GQ: Speaking of business, the movie kind: One thing you've both seen grow is a public obsession with box office. By Sunday afternoon, everybody knows how everything did. These days, when you have a flop, does it hurt more to have it—

Clint Eastwood: —broadcast all over the place? You know, it's really crappy. If it doesn't do well that first weekend, screw it. But you make a film to make a really good film, and if people don't embrace it, there's nothing you can do. You've always gotta remember that a lot of great movies didn't do anything. Everybody would like to have the business that some of these turkeys do, but would you be proud to have your name on them? Not particularly. Would you love to have the bank account? Sure. I made a good living. But that was just lucky. If I'd made a mediocre living, I would have felt the same way.

As Clint Eastwood said, I guess that he "loves to have the bank account" but he purely "makes a film to make a really good film." I believe that "J. Edgar" will receive a higher reputation than it receives now.

Edgar Hoover was a gay, so Clint Eastwood talked about gay marriage in this interview. I completely agreed with what he said.

GQ: You've described yourself as a social libertarian. What does that mean to you?

Clint Eastwood: I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, Let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.

Yes! Anybody should get married to anybody who they want to get married to. That's it!

I, myself, am a libertarian. I learned everything from his movies.

Adele Is the Ultimate Feminist

Honestly, I am not interested in Adele's music at all, and I don't know much about her. I don't even know if she is a feminist, so this entry might miss the point.

Anyway, when I went to preschool, I loved the young and beautiful female teachers much better than the old and kind female teachers. At that time I didn't know about the multiple aspects of personality, and I just focused on the external aspects of human beings.

Now that I've got older and grown as a human a little, so I became to be able to see women from many aspects, and now I love the women who are not young but old, not beautiful but kind.

I saw actresses walking on the red carpet of the Academy Awards. All of them were beautiful and thin. But only Adele was not thin. That's not to say that she wasn't beautiful, but in fact she didn't look like a Hollywood star.

She looked full of confidence and her dress emphasized her physical frame. Apparently she insisted that the value of women walking on the red carpet wasn't limited to beauty and thinness. I wonder if it is feminism. If it is feminism, Adele is the ultimate feminist.

The Perfection of President Obama

I liked President Obama's page on facebook, and sometimes I see Michelle and Barak's photos on my timeline. All of their photos are perfect. Michelle and Barak are always charming.

In the entry "President Obama and Mitt Romney," I wrote "From the standpoint of Japanese view I think that President Obama is so underestimated from American people," and even now I think that he is a good president.

At the same time, I can imagine how people who don't like Barack Obama feel. When I see Michelle and Barak's perfect photos, I can see how somebody would feel embarrassed, because their photos are too perfect

Bush Jr. always made self-deprecating jokes, for example, even though he got C in his university, he could be a president. I have never heard Barak Obama make self-deprecating joke. I guess that people, who support Bush Jr., like his self-deprecating jokes and don't like the perfection of the Obamas.

I heard that the close adviser of Martin Luther King Jr. was always afraid of his scandal. He was the symbol of the civil rights movement, and opponents stood ready to drag him down to disturb the civil rights movement. Of course he wasn't as perfect as ordinary people, but he should pretend to be perfect as the symbol of the civil right movement.

Why didn't Bush Jr. have to pretend to be perfect? I think, because he doesn't belong to a minority group. If Bush Jr. was an idiot, people wouldn't think that all of WASP people are idiots.

When Barak Obama makes a self-deprecating joke, it will be the time that the civil right movement fulfills its goal.

Why Do Firms Exist in Market Economy

I think that Fridrich Hayek was one of the greatest economic and political thinkers in the twentieth century, who insisted that the collective intelligence of general public was better than the wisdom of elites. He supported market economy and criticized planned economy.

Basically I also believe that market economy works far much better than governments and governments should play just accessory roles, because market economy reflects the collective intelligence of general public and governments are based on the "wisdom" of elites.

But if market mechanism is more effective than any organization, why do firms or governments exist in market economy? Why do firms work better than market economy?

Ronald Coase answered this question in his book "the Firm, the Market, and the Law." His answer is "transaction cost."

In order to explain why firms exist and what activities they undertake, I found it necessary to introduce a concept which I termed in that article "the cost of using the price mechanism," "the cost of carrying out a transaction by means of an exchange on the open market," or simply "marketing costs." To express the same idea in my article on "The Problem of Social Cost," I used the phrase "the costs of market transactions." These have come to be known in the economic literature as "transaction cost." I have described what I had in mind in the following terms: "In order to carry out a market transaction it is necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading up to a bargain, to draw up the contract, to undertake the inspection need to make sure that the terms of the contract are being observed, and so on." Dahlman crystallized the concept of transaction costs by describing them as "search and information costs, bargaining and decision costs, policing and enforcement costs."

The Internet gave a great impact on the structure of transaction costs and firms should adjust themselves to it. This change brought the rise and fall of Apple and Sony. Now that Apple successfully adjusted to the new structure of transaction costs, but Sony failed it.

Drucker pointed out that the role of enterprise as follows.

Because it is the purpose to create a customer, any business enterprise has two ― and only two ― basic function: marketing and innovation. These are the entrepreneurial function.

In a sense, it's true. Apple has succeeded, because they concentrated in marketing and innovation. But at the same time, Foxconn also has succeeded, because they got the order of fabrication from Apple.

The key factor of success is to clear up their own position in the new structure of transaction costs. Any organization should identify that what cost they can save in the market economy.

Please Explain to Me What Anti-globalism Is.

I couldn't write a new entry these three weeks. I wasn't so busy at work, but I was just tired. Anyway, I'll try to write a new entry.

It's really true that I can't understand what anti-globalism is at all. What do anti-globalists want?

I think that it is clear that free trade makes people's welfare around the world much bigger. Of course some industries might suffer damage by free trade, but it is the governments' role that compensate these industries. If a government adopted a protectionist trade policies to protect these industries, it would seriously damage tother people.

Globalization isn't a phenomenon in the modern age. The begging of the globalization was that Genghis Khan built the Mongol Empire and made connection between Asia and Europe in the 12th century. In the Age of Discovery, finally Portuguese got to Japan, Zipang, in the 16th century, and the world became literally one globe.

In the previous entry "Spread of Guns in the World History," I wrote that Portuguese gave a deep influence to Japanese history. In other words, the globalization of Japan had already begun in the 16th century, not in the 21st century.

I want to know what anti-globalists want. Do they want to go back before the Mongol Empire or the Age of Discovery? We are living in the globalization and it's almost impossible to refuse it. North Korea isolates in the world and it can be call anti-globalism country, but I guess that anti-globalists don't want to be like North Korea people, do they?

In the novel "Slaughterhouse-Five", Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "writing an anti-war book is like writing an anti-glacier book." Going against globalization is like going against glacier.

Please explain to me what Anti-globalism Is.

Idealism and Pragmatism: the Presidential Election of the U.S.

Obama won the presidential election.

I wrote "From the standpoint of Japanese view I think that President Obama is so underestimated from American people." in the entry "President Obama and Mitt Romney", so I wasn't surprise with his victory at all.

I think that Mitt Romney isn't bad. He is a quite competent businessman, and he could do well if he became the president of the U.S. But Obama is historic and special. He is the first non-white president of the U.S. and his family and he are really cool and sweet. This is the photo that was uploaded on Obama's Facebook wall when his victory came out. He is attractive.

The recession after Lehman Shock wasn't Obama's fault, and it can't be overcame easily because its cause is deep-rooted. Huge trade imbalance between the U.S. and emerging countries is the background of this problem, and there is no silver bullet to solve this situation.

Even Romney can't make jobs, because it isn't the president but businesses that make jobs and the government just can support businesses. Romney, who believes in the power of business sector, also might think so at the bottom of his heart.

When I heard Obama's speech, I was moved by his high ideal. But now, American people want pragmatic solution more than high ideal, don't they? Romney seems to be quite pragmatic.

At the end Obama was reelected, but his political situation isn't easy because Republicans dominates the house. ("Obama Wins a ClearVictory, but Balance of Power Is Unchanged in Washington" The New York Times) I hope that he will make his high ideal for the next four years. He doesn't have to be reelected any more, so he can do what he really wants to do.

American Whaling and Japanese Modernization

Recently I read Eric Jay Dolin's "Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America." 

I've been interested in whaling for a long time, partly because I love the novel "Moby Dick" and partly because whaling deeply influenced to Japanese modernization. I have many other reasons why I've been interested in it, but I don't have enough time to write about all of them.

I've been to Nantucket Island, which is famous for the resort for celebrities living in the East Coast of the U.S. and the Nantucket basket. But for me Nantucket Island is the place where Ishmael got on the whale ship Pequod in Moby Dick.

Before I read the book "Leviathan," I knew about the history of American whaling in fragments, but I got a better overall knowledge about it from this book. I could now understand how Nantucket became the center of American whaling.

According to "Leviathan" the golden age of American whaling was from the 1820s to the 1850s, which is just when Japanese modernization began. From the 17th century to the early 19th century, the Edo Bakuhu, samurai's regime, which strictly closed the country, ruled Japan. In 1868 Edo Bakuhu was overturned, and the new government accelerated Japanese modernization.

The main reason why Edo Bakuhu was overturned was that it couldn't handle the threat of Western countries. In 1853 the fleet of the U.S. navy led by Matthew Perry arrived at the Tokyo bay to demand to open the country. Because of this affair Edo Bakuhu opened the country and many Japanese realized that Japan should be modernized to avoid being colonized by Western countries.

In the background of this affair there was American whaling. After the war of 1812, American whaling made great progress. Before that, its main fishing places were in the Atlantic, and then they expanded to the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. In the 1820s a fishing place off the coast of Japan was discovered and many whale ships from America appeared around Japan.

Edo Bakuhu wanted to close the country, but the foreign whale ships arriving off the coast of Japan resulted in contacts between Japanese people and foreign whalers. Sometimes American whale ships saved Japanese drifters, and some of them were taken to America and got an education there. Sometimes American whale ships shipwrecked off the coast of Japan and Japanese coastal people saved them.

One of the most famous Japanese drifters is John Mung. He was helped by American whale ship and taken to America. He leaned English and became a whaler. And then he smuggled himself back into Japan. When the fleet leaded by Matthew Perry arrived at Japan, there were only two English interpreters in Japan including him.

One of the main reasons why the U.S. government sent the fleet to Japan was to secure supply bases for American whale ships, but ironically at that time the golden age of American whaling was ending. Although the main use of whale oil was for lights, in the 1850s oil fields was discovered and developed in America and whale oil was replaced by kerosene.

I learned from the history of whaling that globalism wasn't just a recent phenomenon and an unexpected side of Japanese modernization. I think that you can find another unexpected side of American and world history from the book "Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America."

Why do the Evils Only Do Evil Things?

I have a question as to why the evils only do evil things in hero movies.

I'm somehow virtuous and evil at the same time. Usually I want to be virtuous, but sometimes I also want to be evil. I can't always keep being virtuous or evil.

I guess that it's easier to be a hero than an evil, because being evil seems to be more stressful than being heroic. Generally it's more possible to be accepted by people around you, when you are virtuous. If you wanted to be evil, you should expect that you would be kept out of your society.

Of course sometimes you could be alone, because you are virtuous, and you could get company, because you are evil. But it's quite tough to keep being only evil.

Primarily, I couldn't be sure what is virtuous or evil. Why do the evils in hero movies look so confident with their evilness? How do they believe in their evilness?

I wrote about heroes and evils in my entry "American Heroes after September 11."

I am interested in the raison d'etre of heroes. If there were no evil in this world, we wouldn't need any heroes. Batman's raison d'etre is Joker. If Joker is gone, Batman also should be gone. Joker will never kill Batman and Batman will never kill Joker. Justice and evil are two sides of the same coin.

I think that heroes and evils, and justice and evil are interdependent with each other. Heroes couldn't be heroes without evils, because they can't believe that they always are virtuous without evils. If heroes want to always to keep being virtuous, evils also must always keep being evil. So "Joker will never kill Batman and Batman will never kill Joker."

I wrote about the conflict between China and Japan about the Senkaku islands in the previous entry "We Should Be Clever Enough Not to Be Controlled by Our Governments But to Control Our Own Governments."

For Chinese people, who go to the demonstration against Japan, Japan is evil, and their claim that Japan is evil makes them confident that they are virtuously stronger. It's true that the Japanese army in World War II did many evil things, but Japanese people including the Japanese army can't always keep being evil. Chinese government wants to make themselves Batman and Japan Joker, but we actually are not as evil as Joker.

In World War II the governments of U.S.A and Japan made horrible propaganda campaigns, which claimed that their enemies were so evil. And this propaganda made the U.S. army and Japanese army crueler, because they thought they could do anything cruel against such evil enemies. If you were interested in their propaganda, I recommend you to read John Dower's book "War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War."

After World War II countries around Japan have been insisting that Japan is evil, and we ourselves think that we are evil to some extent. So we feel guilty about our patriotism. But we are tired of playing as Joker for 60 years.

Osama bin Laden might think of himself as a hero and of George Bush Jr. as an evil. Osama bin Laden needed George Bush Jr. and George Bush Jr. needed Osama bin Laden. The desire of George Bush Jr. becoming a hero made Osama bin Laden more evil for him.

The movie "the Dark Knight" asked about the relation between justice and evil. I think that it's sound to have suspicion about this problem, because that helps us avoid us being like Osama bin Laden or George Bush Jr.

I'm afraid that Japan will become really evil, if Chinese government keeps claiming that Japan is evil.

We Should Be Clever Enough Not to Be Controlled by Our Governments But to Control Our Own Governments

Now the conflict between China and Japan about the Senkaku or the Diaoyu islands is escalating.

I basically think that the assertion of Japanese government is more logical and rational than one of Chinese government, but at the same time I also realize that territorial issues can't be solved by logic but power. It's much better for this kind of issues to be unsolved than to be solved by power, especially military forces.

Before the outbreak of Falklands War almost no one thought that U.K. and Argentina would really make war. We, both of Chinese and Japanese, MUST learn a lesson from Falklands War.

There are a lot of similarities between Falklands War and the conflict about the Senkaku islands. At that time U.K. fell into a long recession, so called "English disease", and Argentina was dominated by the autocratic regime. Both of the British and Argentine people were quite frustrated with their governments.

In the article "Beijing Mixes Messages Over Anti-Japan Protests" September 16, 2012 the New York Times pointed out, as follows.

The political analyst Li Weidong said the official tolerance fit a longstanding pattern of behavior in which the Chinese government uses mass protests to further its foreign policy goals. In a text message sent to friends and associates, Mr. Li compared the current protesters to the Boxers, a quasi-religious group that was used by the Qing dynasty to oppose foreign incursions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

"Beijing dares not to fight, but it’s unable to talk it over either," Mr. Li wrote. "So it has to employ Boxers, using product boycott to press Japan."

I don't completely agree with this article, but it is a usual practice of any government, not just Chinese government, to distract public attention from the frustration to the government by using foreign affairs. But sometimes the government loses control of their people. In fact Argentina government was forced to send its army to Falkland Islands.

At this time almost no one thinks that China and Japan will really fight each other about the Senkaku islands, but I'm afraid that it's possible.

We should be clever enough not to be controlled by our governments but to control our own governments.

The "Salaryman's" Freedom

After the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ich nuclear power plants, I've been wondering if it is possible for a democratic government to effectively regulate something as complex as a nuclear power system which is concerned not only with the generation of nuclear power but also with the production of nuclear fuel and the appropriate method of waste disposal.

So I've been reading books about political philosophy, from those written by John Locke to Antonio Negri, from Edmund Burke to Karl Marx, from Carl Schmitt to Sakae Osugi.

Just now, I finished rereading "The Communist Manifesto".

I am a conservative, but I think that this book is definitely worth reading regardless of your political leaning even though the Soviet Union was, in the end, brought down. There is no ancient polis nowadays, but it's still worth reading Plato's "Politeia".

Karl Marx was one of the biggest philosophers in the 19th century, and this book is the essence of his thought.

I'd like to quote a passage from the "The Communist Manifesto".

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local can national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

This was not written by a contemporary anti-globalization activist, but by a communist in the Victorian era. Globalization, as a phenomenon, is not recent. In fact, Marx - who was no anti-globalization activist but an international communist - accurately commented on its workings some 200 years previously, describing Capitalist society, as follows:

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no longer nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

To be honest, I like to live in this "icy water of egotistical calculation". It's tough for me, and maybe for everyone, to earn money to live in this icy water, but if I'm able to earn enough money, I could be free, then I can enjoy some freedoms.

I'm not an aristocrat from the Bourbon dynasty, a slave in Ancient Egypt, a bourgeoisie in the industrial revolution, and an executive in the modern Chinese Communist party. I haven't realized that I was a proletariat, yet. (Marx might point out that I am a proletariat.)

I don't want to be these people, because I couldn't be free. I'm just a "Salaryman", who is living in contemporary Tokyo. I have to work for a living, but I'm free outside the office.

I don't dominate anyone, and I'm not dominated by anyone. This is the "Salaryman's" Freedom.

I'd like to return to the first question, "Can a democratic government control such a huge system like a nuclear power system?"

I wrote in my entry "Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?" that Japan was formally a democratic country but it was practically an authoritarian system. The Japanese government failed to control Japanese nuclear power system because it failed to control special interest groups.

Now, the regime change from the Liberal Democratic Party to the Democratic Party of Japan has been making Japanese government more democratic, but at the same time it caused political chaos.

I will have to continue to search for an/the answer to my question.

The Dream of Anarchists

Recently I read Sakae Osugi's works.

He was one of the most famous anarchists in Japan before World War II. He was killed by the military police in the chaos just after the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923. After his death, anarchism was almost disappeared in Japan.

He explained about anarchism as follows.

"Anarchist society is a society in which free individuals form organizations of their own free will, and these autonomous organizations form a union."

(自由なる各個人が自由合意によって一団体を形づくり、その各自由自治団体がまた自由意志によって相互の連合を謀る社会である。)

I'd like to put anarchism on the political map.

Communism and anarchism both advocate revolution, but they are opposed between emphasis on the group and emphasis on the individual. Actually they conflicted sharply with each other.

Communism is based on the proletariat as a class, and anarchism is based on laborers as individuals. Communist movements have led to autocratic states, whereas anarchists have failed to take power through lack of organization

Libertarians and anarchists both advocate individualism. I, myself, am conservative, and I agree with the kind of individualism advocated by anarchists. But I thought that an anarchist society was impossible and just the dream of anarchists.

When I read "How to Become a Hacker" by Eric Raymond, I found that the dream of anarchists came true in the hacker society. He wrote as follows.

There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term 'hacker'. Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work.

Hackers solve problems and build things, and they believe in freedom and voluntary mutual help. To be accepted as a hacker, you have to behave as though you have this kind of attitude yourself.

Hackers are naturally anti-authoritarian. Anyone who can give you orders can stop you from solving whatever problem you're being fascinated by — and, given the way authoritarian minds work, will generally find some appallingly stupid reason to do so. So the authoritarian attitude has to be fought wherever you find it, lest it smother you and other hackers.

This is the dream of anarchists, is it? They made a community of their own free will, and expanded the Internet and UNIX world. I think that Sakae Osugi would be a hacker in his era, even if he didn't know a computer.

I found another dream of anarchists, here.

Why does the Japanese government establish the curriculums of all schools in Japan

MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) establishes the curriculums of elementary schools and high schools. Even private schools obey these curriculums. MEXT approves all textbooks to be used in all elementary schools and high schools, too.

When some university in Japan wants to establish a new department, they need the approval of MEXT, even if it were a private university. MEXT checks in very close details.

Why does the Japanese government establish the curriculums of all schools in Japan? Japan is a totalitarian country, isn't it? What's different between Japan and North Korea?

MEXT decided that dance would be taught in gymnastic class in all junior high schools. Many gymnastic teachers are learning dance hastily, now.

I don't oppose teaching dance in junior high schools at all, but I can't understand why the Japanese government decides it and all junior high schools concurrently begin to teach dance.

Everyone has the right to receive education. I think that everyone has the right to receive education that they want to receive.

It's quite ineffective for all students to be taught in the same curriculum. Everyone should learn in their own way.

A "Mecca" of American Democracy

Last summer I made a trip to Washington D.C.

There is a narrow plaza called the Mall in Washington D.C. At one end of the Mall, the U.S. Capitol stands on Capitol Hill, and at the other end is the Lincoln Memorial. Between them the Washington Monument towers up.

I took a visitor tour of Capital Hill and walked down to Lincoln Memorial through the Mall. In the Lincoln Memorial the statue of Lincoln stands saintlike watching over the U.S. Capitol. When I saw it, I realized that for American the people the Mall was a holy place, which I could call a "Mecca" of American democracy.

In the entry "The Myth of "Democracy": "the State of Nature" and "the Social Contract" " I pointed out that "American democracy" appeared very religious to me. At the inauguration of the president of U.S.A., they swear an oath by putting their hands on the Bible. What will happen, I wonder, when a "pagan" like me becomes the president of U.S.A.? Will they too be forced to put their hands on the Bible, aren't they? (Of course American people don't imagine that their president will ever be a jew or a Muslim.)

On the contrary French democracy is far worldlier than American democracy. Many French couples don't choose religious marriage but worldly PACS. Christianity in France is the part of the old regime defeated by the French Revolution. On the other hand Pilgrim Fathers sought another Land of Canaan in the new world.

I watched a movie at the beginning of the visitor tour of Capitol Hill. As a foreign tourist it seemed to be a propaganda movie, which indoctrinated visitors to "American Democracy".

I don't speak against "American Democracy". Moreover I love it. But it isn't universal but somehow strange for me as a foreigner. (At the same time Japanese political system might be quite strange for American people.)

If you are interested in Japanese political system, you will read this entry, "Is Japan Really a Democratic Country?"

Running Away from Vietnam

I've written about TED on this weblog twice.

"A Baby Starts Learning Language From When They Are In Their Mother's Womb"
"There Are No Mistakes on the Bandstand"

I've listened to a new interesting lecture on TED, Tan Lee's "My Immigration Story".


She ran away from Vietnam to Australia on a small boat with her grandmother and mother.

I was really moved by the story about her grandmother's death.

She said that her grandmother was born under a Confucianism society and became a second wife.

At that time Vietnam was a French colony. And then the Japanese army invaded Vietnam. After World War II the French army came back and the Vietnam people fought against them. Vietnam was divided into North Vietnam, which was a communist country, and South Vietnam, which was a despotic country. The US armed forces made a cruel war against Viet Cong.

At the end she ran away from the Vietnam Communist party and died in Australia. The history of modernization in Asia is full of hardship, which her life symbolized.

Tan Lee said the following.

I was taking a shower in a hotel room in Sydney the moment she died 600 miles away in Melbourne. I looked through the shower screen and saw her standing on the other side. I knew she had come to say goodbye. My mother phoned minutes later. A few days later, we went to a Buddhist temple in Footscray and sat around her casket. We told her stories and assured her that we were still with her. At midnight the monk came and told us he had to close the casket. My mother asked us to feel her hand. She asked the monk, "Why is it that her hand is so warm and the rest of her is so cold?" "Because you have been holding it since this morning," he said. "You have not let it go."

"Her hand is so warm." I won't forget that phrase.

I wrote about a Vietnam refugee in Japan on the entry "Moving Children".

Please read about MC NAM's story and hear his rap "My Song".