This essay appeared in the Dokuritsu Hyōron in two parts on February 1 and March 3, 1903.
……….
(Part I)
I mentioned in the previous issue that Uchimura Kanzō had criticized my views on imperialism. Recently, while reading the Seikyō Shinpō, I came across the following passage.
“Dokuritsu Hyōron, Issue No. 1: This publication was launched to mark the return of Mr. Yamaji Aizan, who had long remained in obscurity in the provinces, serving as an editor for a local newspaper, to the national intellectual arena. Born of the declaration that “this is the fruit of our own unaided efforts,” the magazine seeks to address the nation with a wealth of ideas and a measured, articulate style; to analyze contemporary figures of greatness with the same cool-headedness and boldness applied to historical figures; to view politics solely through the lens of major policies that shape the nation’s destiny; to devote deep attention to philosophy and religion while examining the currents of thought regarding ethics and morality; and to entrust its future to the righteous spirit of the Japanese people.
Upon seeing the key articles listed in this issue, such as ‘On Dokuritsu Hyōron by Tokutomi Sohō, ‘My Speech at the House of Peers’ by Takekoshi Yosaburō, ‘Common Sense as the Foundation of Thought’ by Miyazaki Koshoshi, ‘Nietzsche’s Philosophy’ by Date Gen’ichirō, ‘A Critique of Dr. Inoue’s ‘Biography of Shakyamuni’ by Takagi Ōtarō, and a historical essay by Tsukagoshi Teishun, one feels, in a way, as though Kokumin no tomo has returned. Yet, upon reading the piece included at the end of the volume titled ‘Why I Am a Believer in Imperialism’, I cannot help but admire the author’s stance; alongside Tokutomi Sohō and his circle, he demonstrates a ‘noble transformation’ of views while clearly articulating his current position.”
The writing style is light and deft, leaving one to ponder whether this is truly an endorsement or a critique, and while the nuances are somewhat elusive, the underlying sentiment appears to reflect a regret regarding my own shift in views.
It is not only intellectuals like the aforementioned person who take issue with my stance on imperialism; even the young fishmonger who visits my home daily remarked, upon seeing the first issue of this magazine, “This Dokuritsu hyōron is certainly interesting, but imperialism is a doctrine of the strong preying upon the weak; I never imagined ‘you’, sir, would be an advocate of such a thing.”
How profoundly misunderstood imperialism is!
I believe I must offer a rebuttal.
By becoming an advocate for imperialism, I have not abandoned my long-held love for liberty, progress, and enlightenment. In ancient times, the supreme goal to which the heroes of Greece and Rome dedicated their bodies and souls was the protection of their city-states, the nations of that era, from invasion by enemy powers. In other words, the concept of ‘liberty’ at that time referred not to individual freedom, but to the freedom of the state.
In the days when continental powers dominated the English monarch and the politics of this island nation were constantly subject to outside interference, the English people coined the phrase ‘Liberated Monarchy’, signifying a king freed from such control. They desired a monarch liberated from the interference of the continental powers. I, too, cherish freedom. Precisely because I cherish it, I respect individual liberty, yet I hold the freedom of the nation in even deeper regard.
For the state is the sole institution charged with protecting individual liberty; yet, unless the state itself is secured against interference from other nations, one cannot expect the proper functioning of that institution. As Dr. Seeley observed, when the state faces no existential crisis, individual liberty is asserted by the people; conversely, when the state’s existence is imperiled, individual liberty is often sacrificed to fortify the state’s survival. Individual liberty is truly something to be cherished.
When the very existence of the nation is at stake, the act of sacrificing individual freedom to first secure the state’s survival, an act akin to ‘sacrificing oneself for the greater good’, is, I do not hesitate to say, in perfect accord with the fundamental principles of human nature. In the past, when the survival of the nation was not the critical issue it is today, I stood alongside my seniors as a foot soldier in the battle for individual liberty. Now, however, the fate of the world has shifted dramatically, and the existence of the nation has become a matter of far greater urgency than ever before. How, then, could I fail to alter my stance in step with these changing times?
In 1890, the year that saw the opening of the Imperial Diet of Japan, a truly momentous event in world history, Bismarck retired, and the young German Emperor took personal charge of state affairs. His new course of action demonstrated that the destiny of the world was breaking free from the old order and advancing daily toward new ideals. Bismarck was, in truth, a great embodiment of the spirit of the age, a figure second only to Napoleon the Great, and his aim was to forge an independent, free nation founded upon the principle of nationality.
This national movement was rooted in the early modern civilizations of the distant past, such as the Renaissance and the Reformation, and was precipitated by the recent upheavals caused by Napoleon, who shattered established traditions and mocked existing authorities; in Germany, it was brought to fruition by Bismarck. The demands of the era gave rise to similar phenomena elsewhere: Italy was unified through the efforts of Cavour, and the various peoples of the Balkan Peninsula began to stir.
Greece broke free from Turkish rule and gained independence as a result. Poland attempted a resurrection but ultimately failed. Hungary barely managed to secure autonomy. Various peoples strove to become unified nations, and some succeeded in their aims. The greater part of the nineteenth century was consumed by such nationalist movements. These movements largely succeeded, giving birth to the modern nation-state. One might have expected the world to remain in a state of repose thereafter, but that was not to be. Evolution is a supreme law of the Divine, and ceaseless activity is the universal rule of human affairs. Cavour is dead. Bismarck has grown old.
The course of the world has advanced beyond the era of national movements and entered the era of imperial movements. What, then, is meant by an ‘imperial movement’?
To explain this is to explain the nature of modern civilization.
Wishing to avoid confusing the reader with a multitude of arguments, I intend here to outline only the essential points.
(1) From the perspective of economics, the state is the largest joint-stock company, possessing the greatest amount of capital. This is a new principle born of the prevailing trends of the present day. To put it another way, the long-envisioned concept of state enterprise is finally on the verge of being implemented on a massive organizational scale; the state has come to be viewed not merely as an institution protecting the rights of the people from domestic and foreign encroachment, but as the largest corporation managing the greatest share of the people’s collective capital. Indeed, the idea of state enterprise is nothing new. Even the so-called ‘Mercantile System’, in its underlying spirit, amounts to little more than a form of state enterprise.
Similarly, the ‘Green Sprouts Law’, once attempted by the great Northern Song statesman Wang Anshi only to end in spectacular failure, was, in principle, essentially a manifestation of the state enterprise concept. For all the blood they expended, they failed. What is the reason behind this? According to the Zhao Yi observes in his Notes on the Twenty-Two Histories that:
“When Anshi first served as a local magistrate, he lent grain to the people to help them sustain their livelihoods, requiring repayment only when the new harvest came in; the people found this system highly beneficial. Anshi was a man of integrity, and because he implemented this policy personally within his own district, the people reaped the benefits without suffering any harm. Later, upon rising to high office at court, he sought to implement this same policy nationwide, having already seen its effectiveness in his own district. … There are, of course, measures that yield benefits when implemented by a single individual but cause harm when applied across the entire realm. … Throughout history, there has never been a lack of sound policies. Yet, once such a policy passes through the hands of an incompetent official, a multitude of abuses inevitably arise. It is a case of having the right people to govern but lacking the proper methods of governance.”
Wang Anshi’s reforms yielded benefits when implemented within a single province yet proved ineffective when applied across the whole of China. The reason for this lies in the fact that, in an era lacking adequate transportation and communication networks, a vast state could not maintain swift interaction between its central nervous system and its peripheral nerves; consequently, a multitude of intermediary officials were required, resulting in an unwieldy administrative structure where administrative energy was entirely dissipated by the friction of the machinery itself. In short, the state of that time was an organism too sluggish to conduct business in the manner of an individual.
Consequently, in states with extremely limited territorial bases and simple administrative structures, such as the domains in the Tokugawa era or the free cities of medieval Europe, this concept of the state as a business enterprise proved effective early on; the prosperity of Venice and Florence stands as a striking example.
In our own country, too, rulers such as Ikeda Mitsumasa of Bizen, Hosokawa Shigekata of Higo, and Uesugi Harunori of Yonezawa succeeded in utilizing the state apparatus to foster national wealth; yet, in nations with vast territories, such an approach proved fundamentally unfeasible. This is precisely why the doctrine of non-interference emerged with the advent of the modern state, and why economists of the Manchester School vigorously proclaimed the state’s incapacity to manage economic activity. Times, however, have changed completely.
National transportation systems have made extraordinary strides alongside advancements in applied science. The state is no longer hampered by the gap between its central nervous system and its peripheral organs, nor is it plagued by the waste of energy caused by friction between overlapping agencies. Thanks to the vital force coursing through its controls and organizational structure, the state can now operate with remarkable agility and vigor. It is capable of acting even more swiftly across vast territories than the feudal lords of old or the free cities of medieval Europe, who could only deploy their energy without hindrance within their own small domains, were able to do. In such an era, it is hardly surprising that the concept of state-run enterprise has seen a resurgence.
The peoples of Europe have come to view the state as a kind of joint-stock company, desiring to see its power harnessed for the sake of national prosperity and the public welfare. This trend has been further intensified by another factor: the emergence of the super-rich. These tycoons represent a remarkable historical phenomenon of the modern age. Just as autonomous cities were a distinctive feature of the European Middle Ages, these titans of wealth constitute a unique phenomenon that has emerged in the era spanning the latter half of the nineteenth century into the twentieth. They are, in effect, a state within the state, a different kind of dynasty arising alongside those that pride themselves on their lineage and history.
It is in the United States that the power of these immensely wealthy families is most strikingly evident. Consider, for instance, the recent event where the German Emperor granted an audience to Morgan, the American ‘trust’ king, aboard the imperial yacht Hohenzollern. Consider the case of the Clark family, who offered a bribe of $2.5 million to lawmakers in their bid to gain control of the Amalgamated Copper Company, which monopolized the sale of copper. Consider the fact that while the President’s annual salary is $50,000, a single executive of the copper trust receives an annual income of $1 million.
Consider the Chicago millionaire who paid $200,000 for his daughter’s medical treatment. Consider how many American universities exist under the patronage of the wealthy. The great historian Si Maqian wrote: “A household with a fortune of a thousand gold pieces rivals the lord of a walled city; one with vast wealth shares the same pleasures as a king.” Yet the pleasures they enjoy go beyond mere shared amusement; they have evolved into a massive organization. Just as the warriors of old, competed to become private retainers to the Minamoto or Taira clans who lived under imperial rule, the people of America, while remaining citizens of the nation, have largely become private dependents of the super-rich.
Not only do they possess representatives to speak for them in parliament, advocates to champion their cause in international relations, and administrators to govern on their behalf within local self-government systems, but they have gone even further: by means of ‘trusts’ and ‘syndicates,’ they have ceased mutually wasteful competition and have all but succeeded in securing exclusive control over the profits of production and trade. Is this not the emergence of a truly formidable force?
This phenomenon is by no means unique to the United States; the advent of massive, science-driven machinery has spawned huge factories across civilized nations, and these factories have given rise to a class of wealthy capitalists. As populations increasingly flock to urban centers, more and more people come to rely on the largesse of the wealthy; even the mountain folk of Germany, once proud of their freedom and independence, now seem destined to become mere dependents of these tycoons. Consider, for instance, the Krupp company, which wields power akin to that of a rival nation; who could fail to be awestruck by such immense wealth and influence? This power shakes the very foundations of democratic governance and threatens the viability of the people’s own productive activities. Indeed, it is precisely this force that the European continent fears as an ‘American scourge.’ To be specific, the fear lies in the prospect of American tycoons banding together to form ‘trusts’, thereby exporting goods produced at the lowest possible cost on a massive scale, and in doing so, undermining the productive capacity of Europe.
In Germany, the Socialist Party increases its number of elected representatives with every parliamentary election and ever more urgently demands state protection for the people; this is because, within the country, the populace suffers under the oppression of the wealthy. To curb the tyranny exercised over the people by powerful lords who wield arms, the monarch must possess weaponry that is both more abundant and more effective than that held by those lords. Wealthy magnates are already seeking to exploit their riches to create a new class of slaves.
The only way to curb such tyranny is to rely on the administration of the state, an entity that commands greater wealth than even the wealthiest tycoons and is capable of undertaking far more effective action. This explains why modern states are devising measures such as old-age relief for workers, coercive interventions against strikes, and social insurance schemes, while simultaneously seeking to open up avenues for colonial expansion for the benefit of their people; indeed, the resurgence of the concept of state-run enterprise has become an unstoppable force.
Who could have foreseen that the state, once viewed as a ‘necessary evil’ by scholars of the Manchester School, would undergo such a transformation, evolving into a joint-stock enterprise dedicated to the public interest? Truly, the shifting tides of the world are unfathomable. The state has moved beyond its traditional role of merely enacting, enforcing, and upholding the law; it has shifted into the position of a public commercial entity, a joint-stock enterprise that itself monopolizes goods, drains marshes, plants forests, establishes factories, conducts trade, and even undertakes colonization.
This illustrates the fundamental divergence between the policies of Bismarck, representative of the old order, and those of the German Emperor, who embodies the new; it marks a defining characteristic of the transition from the era of national movements to the new epoch of imperial expansion. It is not my place here to debate the merits or demerits of this shift. The march of history is not something that can be swayed by mere argument; I recognize the folly of fighting against the prevailing tide. I simply observe the direction of that tide and hope that the Japanese people will adapt to it by transforming their own institutions and customs.
(Part II)
(2) It is a modern trend to regard vast territory as advantageous. If one views the state as a single production enterprise, it follows logically that one would desire its territory to be extensive. There was a time in the past when a state’s vastness was viewed with aversion, considered a cause that would inevitably lead to its decline. Historians have long warned of how nations that expanded their territories beyond the limits of their effective administrative reach invariably invited their own ruin. Rome conquered the world with the sword; yet, in doing so, it hastened its own destruction.
It was once held as a near-universal truth that a vast nation, being loosely knit, could not match the resilience of a small, compact state, and that the end of a great empire inevitably meant a catastrophic collapse. Yet, such views were merely superficial. Today, however, immense scientific progress and its remarkable applications have made the creation of vast empires a far easier task. We have reached a point where the same effort required to sustain the single city-state of ancient Athens now suffices to support the entire nation of Germany. Science has conquered the world; the most intimate lines of communication have been established, linking the globe from one extreme to the other. Consider, for instance, the overview of 1902 (last year) presented by an American magazine.
The year 1902 was not one marked by a multitude of events that stirred the public pulse; yet, it was a year that held the promise of great things to come. It was decreed that the Western Hemisphere would be divided in two, and that the waters of the eastern and western seas would flow across the isthmus. Plans were laid to complete a global girdle of communication by running two telegraph cables across the bed of the Pacific. Two new transcontinental railways, one traversing the arid highlands of Asia, the other the vast plains of North America, began the work of transporting passengers and freight. The regulation of the Nile River promised to transform the Egyptian landscape into fertile land. Humanity sought to fly through the air by inventing a form of winged craft, to transmit electricity without wires, and to travel beneath the surface of the water…. The largest steamship ever built was launched upon the waters. (New York Collier’s Weekly)
Are these not all triumphs of science, demonstrating that the world is gradually coming under human control? Even today, we are not without tales of adventure akin to the Western expeditions of old, such as the account of Dr. Hedin’s three-year journey into the heart of Asia, recently published in The Manchester Guardian; while reading of his extraordinary and wondrous exploits leaves one spellbound, such stories are no different from the Edo-period warriors who marveled at the exotic wonders described in Tachibana Nanro’s Travels East and West. Yet, the reality is that the greater part of the world has now become a place where anyone can travel freely and safely.
Even the geography of Africa, once characterized as the ‘Dark Continent’, has now largely ceased to be a mystery; France has established a complete transportation network linking its three major territories, (1) Sudan and West Africa, (2) French Congo, and (3) its Mediterranean coastal possessions, while Britain, pursuing the legacy of the late Cecil Rhodes, seeks to complete a railway spanning the continent from the Cape of Good Hope to Cairo, having already finished the line as far as Bulawayo and continuing to press ahead rapidly with construction toward the north.
In this way, the world has shrunk dramatically. Human power has reached a point where the vastness of the land is no longer perceived as an obstacle, as it once was. Given this state of affairs, it is hardly surprising that the world’s powerful nations are eager to expand their territories. After all, in an age where national power is counted among a people’s vital assets, the desire for a broad expanse of land, subject to the nation’s own free control, is naturally something the people themselves aspire to. Let me illustrate this point with a simple, everyday example. Suppose that, in response to the high-handedness of capitalists, a consumers’ cooperative has emerged among the workers.
In such a situation, capitalists will strive to undermine the unions operations in order to protect their own interests; they will seek to lure away those who supply goods to the unions, aiming to make them realize that without the capitalists’ favor, they would struggle to secure materials. At this juncture, there is but one course of action open to the workers: they must expand the unions operations, acquiring not only their material suppliers but also their fellow producers, thereby establishing a firm footing beyond the reach of capitalist power. In other words, the unions must carve out its own sphere of influence and secure a position of independence from the power of capitalists. It is worth noting that this dynamic, the stance adopted between workers and capitalists, has now come to characterize relations between nations as well.
When a nation resolves to sustain its existence through its own production, utilizing state mechanisms to foster domestic industry while excluding foreign goods, it is virtually impossible for another nation to simply remove tariff barriers and freely welcome those foreign goods based on a principle of impartial treatment. Imagine an organism attempting to absorb necessities from its surrounds to sustain its own life; in such a case, the only course of action available to another organism is to pit its own vitality against that of the first.
If there is an organism that, of its own accord, seeks to end its own life and return to its basic constituents, this is simply submitting itself to the assimilative actions of other organisms. Today, the peoples of the world are ceaselessly striving to expand their territories, aiming to transform their nations into vast engines of production, to invigorate national vitality, and to elevate the scale of their operations to greatness; they will not rest until they have turned their respective nations into worlds unto themselves.
The ideal held by the new school of economists is to create a world wherein a nation can sustain itself using only its own resources, independent of supplies or support from other countries; their primary focus lies not on the sustenance of the individual, but rather on that of the state. In short, the population pressure accompanying the extraordinary development of transportation networks compelled the peoples of the world to engage in a fierce struggle for survival. Consequently, nations utilized their state apparatuses to wage this competition, driven by the imperative to transform themselves into self-sufficient, complete worlds, subjugating other nations in the process. Viewed in this light, there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship; the rise of what is now termed ‘imperialism’ is by no means a random phenomenon.
We need only consider what the modern public spirit demands. They do not seek to expand their territory for the sake of empty vainglory. They do not march to the battlefield to become sacrifices offered to the god of war, as Bright once argued. They do not take up arms for the sake of glory, nor do they board warships to spread their renown across the world. They go to war because necessity compels them. They seek new territories solely to nurture the nation’s vitality and sustain its life. Consider, for instance, why the American people—descendants of the Puritans and compatriots of Washington, abandoned the policies of their forebears to acquire Hawaii and the Philippines.
They recognized that this was an unavoidable policy for the modern era. They observed European powers gathering in the Pacific with each passing moment. Furthermore, they saw that controlling naval power in the Pacific was not only indispensable for maintaining the very existence of the United States but also essential for the survival of the Monroe Doctrine, which itself relied upon the nation’s existence. Perceiving that if they did not seize this opportunity themselves, it would inevitably be taken by others, and, concluding that such a loss would ultimately threaten the nation’s vital interests, they took the initiative to secure it.
They reasoned that unless they secured Subic Bay as a coaling station and Manila as a naval port, they would be unable to save their major customer, Qing China, from being carved up by the Great Powers. Thus, they took a giant stride forward and embarked on a Pacific strategy that would achieve remarkable success. That is not all. Even if their traditionalists were to criticize them for abandoning ancestral policies and undermining a strategy of non-intervention, fair-minded citizens would praise the statesmen’s actions as timely and appropriate, recognizing that only through such measures could the United States guarantee its own security. Summer calls for linen, winter for heavier robes; how can those who fail to grasp the spirit of the times presume to discuss the pressing affairs of the day?
It is a fact that small independent nations such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Denmark exist in the modern era. However, they are relics of the Middle Ages, and their independence is merely something permitted through the recognition of powerful nations. The truly modern entity is a great nation capable of constituting a world unto itself. Only such a great nation can participate in global policy making, only such a nation can secure a voice in world affairs backed by its own military might. The world today is not merely an array of small nations lacking power and the ability to enforce sanctions. Rather, peace is maintained through the consensus of powerful nations, nations that speak on global affairs and, should their words go unheeded, possess the capacity to immediately impose sanctions extending beyond mere rhetoric upon other countries.
It is in this manner that the so-called ‘armed peace’ has been attained.
To use the terminology of historians, this is an era defined by the politics of powerful nations.
Those who would now dismiss the necessity of the state’s existence, or regard the expansion of territory as mere vanity, betray a total lack of understanding regarding the world in which they live. I reiterate that this is the prevailing trend of the times. I cannot question why the Yellow River flows eastward; nor can I condemn the trade winds for blowing in a fixed direction. We must distinguish between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be.’
We certainly do not regard the world’s great powers’ fervent pursuit of territorial expansion as a welcome phenomenon. Nor do we find it pleasing that the German Emperor, the very embodiment of the modern spirit, ceaselessly exerts his restless energy to constantly stir up trouble in South America, Asia Minor, and the Far East. Yet, whether we view these developments with satisfaction or displeasure is one matter; the fact that the prevailing tide of events is inevitable, that things simply ‘must’ unfold this way, is quite another. A stout person may dread the summer, but summer has never once hesitated to arrive simply because a person is heavy. Conversely, there are those who loathe the winter because they are frail and thin.
Yet, one cannot simply rest during the winter, for to do so would be to invite the very calamity one dreads. Many noble-minded individuals, men of benevolence and compassion, loathe the very name of ‘imperialism.’ I do not doubt the depth of human feeling hidden within their hearts. However, the prevailing tide of events is ruthless. The Seven Warring States did not lay down their arms simply because Mencius existed, nor has the world disarmed merely because of Tolstoy. Argument is one thing; the inexorable march of events is quite another. Today, the great powers are sharpening their claws and fangs, cultivating their might, and striving to invigorate their national vitality. Such is the trend of the times. How, then, can we, the people of Japan, alone afford to disarm? How can we alone cling stubbornly to the old ideal of universal benevolence? I see a pressing need, at this very moment, to rouse the spirit of the nation.
(3) The Evolution of Racial Concepts. Based on my studies, the concept of race has undergone three major transformations. In the earliest times, when the world’s population was sparse and means of transportation were undeveloped, views regarding other races amounted to little more than contempt born of imagination; this was the first stage. Subsequently, as populations grew and transportation networks expanded, different races came to understand and tolerate one another. The ideal of universal brotherhood emerged during this period. At the height of its power, Rome conquered the nations along the Mediterranean coast through military force; yet, as the famous Roman roads extended to the far reaches of the empire, Stoic philosophers began to advocate for the concept of the brotherhood of all mankind.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, Britain was truly the hub of world trade. The ‘cosmopolitanism’ championed by the likes of Cobden and Bright had effectively transformed Britain into a center of global exchange, an era characterized by mutual support and understanding among peoples, known as the ‘second stage.’ However, with the immense progress of applied science, populations surged dramatically, and different peoples came to feel the pressure of mutual encroachment acutely. Consequently, they shifted away from a universalism that treated all equally, reverting to an older mindset of protecting their own kind while excluding others. The difference from the past lies solely in the rationale: whereas exclusion was once driven by imagination and emotion, it is now grounded in the imperative to secure one’s own existence. This marks the entry of human attitudes toward other races into the ‘third stage’ the very trend we observe today.
Every historical era possesses its own distinct characteristics. If one were to characterize the present age without significant error, it would be defined by the intensifying prominence of racial consciousness. In the past, the Roman Church united the Latin and Teutonic races through a shared faith; today, however, the situation is different. Each race now seeks to unite its own kin, regarding the assertion of its survival in the world through that collective strength as a sacred duty. While a modern state is not, strictly speaking, synonymous with a race, for a single state may govern multiple races, and a single race may be divided among many states, the prevailing trend is a movement toward aligning a single race directly with a single state.
Every historical era possesses its own distinct characteristics. If one were to characterize the present age without significant error, it would be defined by the intensifying prominence of racial consciousness. In the past, the Roman Church united the Latin and Teutonic races through a shared faith; today, however, the situation is different. Each race now seeks to unite its own kin, regarding the assertion of its survival in the world through that collective strength as a sacred duty. While a modern state is not, strictly speaking, synonymous with a race, for a single state may govern multiple races, and a single race may be divided among many states, the prevailing trend is a movement toward aligning a single race directly with a single state.
It is for this reason that Pan-Slavism and Pan-Germanism have arisen; likewise, arguments for an alliance of the Anglo-Saxon races and for an alliance of the Latin races have emerged from the same cause. I believe that fierce racial competition will indeed be a momentous spectacle of the future. The primary criterion determining the outcome of such racial competition lies in the size of the population. As the struggle for human survival becomes increasingly intense and terrifying due to scientific progress, the focus shifts, moving from theories of state-run enterprise, territorial expansion, and racial solidarity, to the imperative of increasing population. This is, after all, the natural order of things. Long ago, Confucius spoke of the art of statecraft, saying: ‘Ensure a sufficiency of food and a sufficiency of arms, and the people will trust in the state.’ Yet, how can one secure a sufficiency of food without expanding one’s territory?
One cannot hope to augment military strength without first bolstering the population. The very lifeblood of a powerful nation today depends upon the state of its population; indeed, the people who hold the greatest promise for the future, as revealed by demographic statistics, are the ones who possess the greatest potential for national vitality. In this sense, despite the vast differences in their political systems and civilizations, both Russia and the United States must be recognized as quintessentially modern nations. This is because both countries not only possess massive populations but also maintain low population densities while experiencing extremely rapid rates of growth. In the past, nations lacked the mechanisms to concentrate a dispersed population for military or industrial purposes; consequently, a vast population often became a burden on the state rather than an asset.
However, the situation is different today. While the invention of massive machinery saves on human labor in one respect, it simultaneously leads to a concentration of human labor; this concentration, in turn, intensifies the demand for labor, causing wages to rise rather than fall, contrary to the predictions of economists. Indeed, the colossal output that overwhelms other nations has been achieved solely through the utilization of such a vast population. If a substantial population is essential for this ‘war of peace,’ it goes without saying that it is equally vital for actual warfare. Such is the prevailing trend of the times; a trend that cannot be resisted.
As citizens of Japan, we must rouse our spirits to the task at hand, seizing this great trend of the times and ensuring that we do not become the weak or the vanquished, those who fail to keep pace with the era. To put it another way: we must establish a global policy to counter the national enterprises of the Great Powers; bolster our military capabilities to guard against unprovoked aggression and secure a voice in a world defined by ‘armed peace’; promote the health of the people and foster the happiness of sober, prolific families to drive population growth; and, in doing so, adopt a forward-moving stance. The Yoshida Monogatari contains an account of Mōri Motonari.
There is a passage that states the following: Rumors circulated that Amago Haruhisa was critically ill, hovering between life and death, or even that he had already passed away. Various retainers reported this to Lord Motonari, thinking it would please him. However, upon hearing this, Motonari’s demeanor changed drastically. He declared that Haruhisa’s death was a matter beyond human control, yet he had hoped to engage Haruhisa in a decisive battle while he was still alive. He noted that although they had clashed several times since the 1540, they had never faced one another directly in a decisive engagement between their main forces. He expressed that he had no intention of invading Unshū (Izumo Province) simply because the enemy leader was incapacitated; to take advantage of such a situation would be the behavior of a weak general’s retainers. He dismissed the retainers’ eagerness to capitalize on Haruhisa’s critical illness as a truly deplorable attitude. “Rejoicing in the enemy’s weakness is the way of a weak general’s retainers.”
That single phrase truly embodies the enduring spirit of Confucian virtue. Today, the world seeks to overwhelm us with its imperial might. For the subjects of Japan, is this not an occasion to test our resilience in the face of our destiny and to prove the vitality with which we meet our circumstances? Just as the courage of the Mikawa warriors was tempered by their battles against the men of Kōshū, so too should we recognize that this fearsome global struggle for survival is merely a catalyst that will elevate the future of the Japanese people. Whenever I reflect upon this, I invariably feel the blood surging through my veins.
