Imperialism: Monster of the Twentieth Century by Kotoku Shusui was undoubtfully one the most innovative and radical publications of its time. This is partly, as Robert Tierney stresses, due to Shusui’s dedication to his beliefs; even in an extremely hostile and oppressive society, he became the forerunner for the Japanese anti-imperialist movement.[1] Unlike his contemporaries, Shusui was the first to acknowledge and condemn Japanese imperialism, as anti-Imperialists had, prior to Shusui, solely fixated their criticisms towards European imperialism.[2] Shuisui’s work specifically focuses upon two characteristics of imperialism, patriotism and militarism, both for which he has often received unwarranted criticism.[3] I, for one, feel that such criticisms that have been levied are outdated and would like to demonstrate this in conjunction with revisionist scholarship. Before this, however, it is best to first analyse Shuisui’s work to understand the roots of said criticisms.
Patriotism
Patriotism is a key theme within Shusui’s text, as he looks to outline the contradictory nature of such an ideology in an imperial context. Foremost, he emphasises the shallowness of patriots, whose love for their country is plainly fuelled out of hatred towards other nation-states. It is this ‘otherness’ complex that Shusui is quick to denounce: “for the sake of those whom one loves, one should attack those one hates. This in a nutshell is the logic of patriotism”.[4] When reflecting internally on Japan, Shusui clearly blames the Japanese elite for spreading patriotic fever as an instrument of war. Surprisingly, however, the Emperor appears to be pardoned, for “he prefers peace to war and values freedom over oppression”.[5] This baffling paradox will be discussed later in reference to secondary scholarship.
Militarism
In “Militarism,” Shusui questions the intellect of modern military tacticians, comparing their armaments to toys, while simultaneously belittling their rhetoric.[6] One of the main criticisms Shusui highlights is the contrived argument that war leads to the progression of humanity. Rather skilfully, Shusui points to a plethora of examples that would denote otherwise; furthermore, he goes on to illustrate the archaisms of warfare and how war is an impediment to global society.
Criticisms
The most vocal critiques of Shusui’s Imperialism can be found amongst Marxist historians, such as Itoya Toshio, who stipulate that Shusui fails to capture the importance of capitalism within the imperialist ideology.[7] Itoya Toshio, in turn, is most likely to have been influenced by a Leninist interpretation of imperialism which underlines imperialism as the “highest form” of capitalism itself.[8]
Additionally, criticism can also be seen from a postcolonial perspective in light that the focality of Shusui’s work is based on the detriment of imperialism on the transgressors and not the indigenous. Only fleetingly are the consequences of imperialism for the indigenous populations mentioned, found at the end of “Militarism”, and they can scarcely be understood as more than an afterthought.
Finally, others, like Max Ward, highlight the emperor paradox and state that the acclaimed “symbolic transcendence” of the emperor implied he could be, and indeed was, used by the proponents of imperialism to galvanise the Japanese populace into supporting war.[9]
Revisionism
Post Marxists would question the degree of impetus placed upon capitalism in a Leninist interpretation of imperialism; a state can be imperialist or have imperialist intentions without economic motivations. One should not view history through teleological lens.
Not much can be said as a retort to the post-colonialist, their criticisms are fair and measured. The emperor paradox, on the other hand, should be redressed in its entirety, a reinterpretation best captivated by John Hennessey. Perhaps instead of viewing Kotoku’s work as a singular publication, it needs to be understood within its surrounding context, namely, that “Imperialism” was, or would have been, censored due to any negative connotations directed against the emperor.[10] Socialism and anarchism were barely tolerated in Japanese society and anything remotely controversial towards the Emperor would have severely diminished Shusui’s reputation. Perhaps Hennessey’s justification also explains the events of 1910, when Shusui was arrested for high treason; otherwise, this abrupt transition in developing a hatred for the emperor would seem rather inconsistent.
[1] Robert. T. Tierney, ‘Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kotoku Shusui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement’, University of California Press: 2015, p.2
[2] Ibid., p.3
[3] Ibid., p.8
[4] Ibid., p.149
[5] Ibid., p.157
[6] Ibid., pp.163-165
[7] Itoya Toshio, ‘Kōtoku Shūsui: Hito to shisō (Kōtoku Shūsui: The man and his thought)’, Tokyo Century Books: 1973, p.116
[8] Robert. T. Tierney, ‘Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kotoku Shusui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement’, University of California Press: 2015, p.2
[9] Max Ward, ‘Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kotoku Shusui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement review)’, The Journal of Japanese studies, 45,(2019), p.409
[10] John Hennessey, ‘Monster of the Twentieth Century: Kotoku Shusui and Japan’s First Anti-Imperialist Movement review)’, itinerario, 40, (2016), p. 157