Ruling coalition hammered in Tokyo elections - but Communists fail to deliver

[MarxSchmarx]

Japan's ruling coalition of the capitalist/nationalist LDP and the Buddhist fundamentalist Komeito have been dealt a serious blow in Tokyo's municipal elections, leading to the prime minister calling elections.

The real winner was the DPJ, a neoliberal party about as bad as the American Democrats or Canadian Liberals, and arguably worse than most European social democrats:

http://ibtimes.com.au/articles/20090714/japans-historic-poll.htm

What has not been reported in the English-language press is that despite growing ranks and deep public dissatisfaction with the ruling coalition and high expectations:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5819669/Japanese-turn-to-communists-in-downturn.html

the Japanese Communist Party shared in losing ground to the DPJ - they lost a staggering 6 seats out of their 14 in their relative stronghold in urban Japan.

More voters, dissatisfied with the capitalist order as they are and disillusioned with the authoritarianism of the ruling party, still seem willing to embrace a rather useless opposition and are buying into the two party "lesser of two-evilism" instead of voting their hearts.

The JCP has gone too far down the road of electoral politics to change its strategy now. It is caught in the trap of getting about 10-15% of the vote in most elections and so remains enough of a force to be reckoned with, but not enough to change the system in any meaningful way. As such, it won't expand its share of the vote, but must remain for all intents and purposes a basically electorally based and reformist organization to keep its voters.

This should be a serious cautionary tale for parties in our movement that put so much effort into electoral success.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As such, it won't expand its share of the vote, but must remain for all intents and purposes a basically electorally based and reformist organization to keep its voters.

This should be a serious cautionary tale for parties in our movement that put so much effort into electoral success.

There's so much potential for the party to expand its reform program beyond its narrow horizons, but no, social-democratist crap rears its ugly head again. :(

[MarxSchmarx]

There's so much potential for the party to expand its reform program beyond its narrow horizons, but no, social-democratist crap rears its ugly head again. :(

The JCP has a particularly difficult situation, b/c the "socialist party" (recently renamed the "social democrats") was more pro-Soviet than the JCP, which somehow never was under the Stalinist sphere the way western CPs were. As such, stalinist radicals tended to gravitate to the SPJ while the JCP attracted old-line intellectuals. When the SPJ imploded the JCP had to compete with the DPJ for former SPJ supporters, and their message got diluted in the interim.

All in all, though, the reason the party can't expand really is that it is hand-tied to its moderate electoral success. Any move to expand its program (like demanding social ownership) will make it indistinguishable from other hard left groups and, ultimately, expose the JCP to internal squabbling that could result in fatal splinters.

Indeed, are rather mild reformist demands the price to pay for a unified party? How else do you reach consensus among a coalition but by appealing to the least common denominator? And in doing so, isn't it all to easy to embrace reformist goals?

[Yehuda Stern]

Indeed, are rather mild reformist demands the price to pay for a unified party? How else do you reach consensus among a coalition but by appealing to the least common denominator? And in doing so, isn't it all to easy to embrace reformist goals?

I think these questions themselves betray a reformist and electoralist outlook. Revolutionaries don't sacrifice their program to gain electorally; they sacrifice their electoral power to tell the workers the truth, and to build the revolutionary party in preparation for a change in the consciousness of the working class.

[MarxSchmarx]

Indeed, are rather mild reformist demands the price to pay for a unified party? How else do you reach consensus among a coalition but by appealing to the least common denominator? And in doing so, isn't it all to easy to embrace reformist goals?
I think these questions themselves betray a reformist and electoralist outlook. Revolutionaries don't sacrifice their program to gain electorally; they sacrifice their electoral power to tell the workers the truth, and to build the revolutionary party in preparation for a change in the consciousness of the working class.

Exactly my point. Once you get caught up in the need to win electoral support to remain relevant among the working class, you almost necessarily have to water down your message, and it can be a self-defeating proposition.

But a deeper question is whether an "ideological" unified mass party is even workable or desirable. Electoralist concerns just highlight the danger of going too far in the other direction. The key is to find some middle ground on how "unified" a serious leftist party should be, and this needs to be a concern for parties whether they seek electoral success or not.

[Yehuda Stern]

I still think the question is posed in the wrong way. Yes, we want to unify the class in the revolutionary party - that would be a unified working class party, not a unified left party. History shows that any attempt to unify different left tendencies in a single organization ends in either betrayal or implosion.

I think the truth is, and this is hard for a lot of leftists to hear, is that revolutionaries would have to be isolated for a certain period until the mass of workers would have a change in consciousness, and in the meanwhile our only job would be to protect Marxist theory and to participate in whatever actions of the working class or oppressed possible. On the other hand, I think yes, there is definitely a prospect for a unified revolutionary proletarian party once consciousness changes.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the truth is, and this is hard for a lot of leftists to hear, is that revolutionaries would have to be isolated for a certain period until the mass of workers would have a change in consciousness, and in the meanwhile our only job would be to protect Marxist theory and to participate in whatever actions of the working class or oppressed possible.

Could very well be; in fact, this more or less describes the status quo.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with such defeatist thinking is that it over-relies on the spontaneity of the masses. They tend to want organization before they give any sort of political support.

Yehuda's "left" line reminds me too much of the sectarian SDKPiL (Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania) that refused to both build the Polish workers' movement and liquidate itself into the RSDLP.

[Yehuda Stern]

I have no idea why JR is reminded of that which he is reminded of; perhaps it was yet another attempt of his to show that he knows things that we do not, although unsurprisingly he is wrong. At any rate, I fail to see how my "line" is defeatist, as it doesn't give up on building an organization, or how it relies at all on the spontaneity of the masses. If anything, JR's line relies on appealing to low levels of consciousness and avoiding questions like war and anti-imperialism - a classic economist approach.