A Japanese Prophet Eschatology and Epist

This article was downloaded by: [Danny Orbach]
On: 24 August 2013, At: 04:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Japan Forum
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfo20
A Japanese prophet: eschatology and

epistemology in the thought of Kita Ikki
a
Danny Orbach
a
History Department, Harvard University
To cite this article: Danny Orbach (2011) A Japanese prophet: eschatology and epistemology in the thought
of Kita Ikki, Japan Forum, 23:3, 339-361, DOI: 10.1080/09555803.2011.597511
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2011.597511
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
A Japanese prophet: eschatology
and epistemology in the thought
of Kita Ikki
DA N N Y O R B A C H
Downloaded by [Danny Orbach] at 04:33 24 August 2013
Abstract: The life and intellectual career of the Japanese ideologue, author and
revolutionary Kita Terujirō (Ikki) was, and is still, debated by scholars of modern
Japanese history. While some define him a socialist and others as a fascist, many
historians tend to agree that he shifted from socialism to fascism in the middle of
his career, around 1916, when he was writing his second book, Unofficial history
of the Chinese revolution. This article argues that, while Kita’s thought certainly
contained fascist and socialist elements, its connecting thread was in fact utopian
and eschatological, and that Kita should be seen as a spiritual visionary rather than
as a conventional socialist or fascist. Furthermore, Kita had indeed undergone
a significant change while writing Unofficial history of the Chinese revolution, but
this change was not ideological, but rather epistemological. In other words, a
transition in Kita’s understanding of how valid knowledge should be obtained
shifted his ideology from a relatively peaceful to a violent, revolutionary direction.
This shift had a significant impact on his famous plan for the reorganization of
Japan and, therefore, on Japanese radical groups, primarily in the army, which
endorsed his plan during the 1930s.
Keywords: Kita Ikki, eschatology, epistemology, Marxism, Nichiren

Buddhism
Introduction
The life and career of the Japanese ideologue, author, and revolutionary activist
Kita Terujirō (1883–1937), better known by his adopted name, Kita Ikki, has
always been a subject of lively scholarly debate, as he seems to cross ideological
boundaries and thus frustrates any attempt to define him. Though there is al-
ready a rich body of scholarship about his life, work and ideology, scholars have
failed to reach a consensus regarding his political identity. On one hand, he has
frequently been portrayed as a ‘pseudo-revolutionary’, a ‘fascist terrorist’, and
the ‘father of Japanese fascism’ (Fujiwara 1954, p. 62, Tanaka 1959, pp. 1–3, 75,
Japan Forum 23(3) 2011: 339–361 ISSN: 0955–5803 print/1469–932X online
Copyright
C 2011 BAJS http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2011.597511
340 A Japanese prophet
Maruyama 1969, p. 28, Shigemoto 1979, pp. 96–97). On the other hand, he has
been portrayed as a ‘pure socialist’, a ‘socialist who strived for equality’, ‘a vision-
ary permanently at odds with the status quo’, and the developer of a Japanese
‘indigenous socialism’ (Matsuda 1964, p. 434, Wilson 1969, p. 136; Kume 1998,
Huang 2001, p. 313). A student of Kita’s life and work is surely to come across
countless contradictions: he was indeed both a self-declared Marxist and an ar-
dent nationalist, a critic of the Japanese Imperial system and its admirer, a staunch
believer in class war and internationalism and also in Japan’s destiny to rule the
world. Sometimes it seems that definitions tend to obscure more than clarify the
real nature of Kita’s ideology. This confusion found expression in a recent study
that described him as a political opportunist and his ideology as a medley of con-
tradicting ideas, bereft of any coherent system of thought (Szpilman 2002, p. 468).
My goal in this article is to offer a new perspective: namely, the central tenet
that unifies Kita’s ideology is eschatology, the religious belief that human history
is linear and has a demarcated end. Moreover, Kita’s eschatology was apocalyptic
and utopian in nature. He believed that history would end in a world-wide catas-
trophe, but, at the same time, this catastrophe would bring about a perfect and
unchanging ‘heaven on earth’. This ideology was a blend of theistic and atheistic
eschatological ideas, the latter primarily drawn from European Marxism and the
former from Nichiren Buddhism and Kita’s own peculiar, personal mythology.
Surprisingly, this eschatology, which pervades virtually all Kita’s major works,
has been all but ignored by most scholars. Most of them have not only glossed
over the considerable eschatological elements in his books, but also refrained
from analyzing the recurring mystical prophesies in all of them. The most recent
example is Walter A. Skya, who goes so far as to interpret Kita as a secular, rational
thinker. This is especially striking, as Skya (2009, pp. 30, 112–131) depicts Kita
as secular in contrast to alleged ‘Shintō fundamentalists’ such as Hozumi Yatsuka
and Uesugi Shinkichi. An exception to this rule is Takeyama Morio, an unusually
original scholar who attempted to explain the contradictions in Kita’s ideology by
psychoanalyzing Kita’s personality, assigning greater importance to the ‘spiritual’
or ‘religious’ elements in his thought.
As Takeyama (2005, pp. 1–4, 10–11) vividly demonstrated, religious elements
tinctured with eschatological characteristics are present even in Kita’s first book,
Kokutairon and pure socialism (Kokutairon oyobi junsei shakaishugi), which is usually
considered a product of the socialist, secular, and rational phase of his writing.
It may be possible to take Takeyama’s observation a step further and view these
eschatological elements as a connecting thread across Kita’s various works.
However, Takeyama seemed more interested in Freudian analysis of Kita’s
personality than in any eschatological dimension. Thus, he suggested that Kita’s
ideas are no more than the product of the disturbed mind of a schizoid, who,
being emotionally isolated from society, conceived the external world as a mere
reflection of his own inner conflicted and divided world. Hence, the external
world was perceived as a divided and degenerate place, first violently torn apart
and finally re-conceived as a utopia (Takeyama 2005, pp. 1–5, 10–11, 26–29).
Danny Orbach 341
Takeyama’s view is interesting, but at the same time problematic. For, as much
as his arguments are convincing, they are largely speculative, being based on a
far-away psychological analysis of a person long-dead. Furthermore, as Kita’s
ideas wielded considerable influence on the Young Officers’ Movement (Seinen
Shōkō Undō) in the 1930s, it might be worth examining them in their own right,
instead of merely speculating on their psychological origins.
In the first part of this article, I will define the terms ‘theistic and atheistic
eschatology’, and discuss them in the context of European Marxism and Nichiren
Buddhism, two ideological systems that greatly influenced Kita’s worldview.
The second part of the article is devoted to a close textual analysis of Kita’s
three major works: Kokutairon and pure socialism (1906), Unofficial history of the
Chinese revolution (1916), and Fundamental principles for the reorganization of Japan
(1919). The basic outline of each work will be briefly described, followed by a
detailed analysis of the role of eschatology in its content and structure. Also, I will
dwell on a shift in Kita’s epistemological basic assumptions (the perceived ways
in which valid knowledge is being obtained), first evident in Unofficial history of
the Chinese revolution, and on the ways that this shift influenced his eschatological
vision.
Theistic and atheistic eschatology

The term ‘eschatology’ is derived from the Greek word ‘eschaton’, which literally
means ‘last’. Similarly, eschatology is defined by Jerry L. Walls as ‘the study of the
final end of things, the ultimate resolution of the entire creation’ (2008, p. 4). In
other words, eschatology is essentially a theory of history, one that presumes that
history has a clear beginning, linear process, and, most importantly, a demarcated
end.
In different religious traditions, there are multiple eschatological ideas, and, in
many of them, there is an element of an apocalypse – a final disaster, usually a
catastrophic world war, which will end history as we know it. This catastrophe
usually ends in a utopia – an unchanging perfect situation of bliss, either for
humanity as a whole or for a small group of righteous people chosen by God.
In his discussion of Christian eschatology, Stephen T. Davis defined this specific
eschatology as a
linear view of time. . . . [Contrary to pagan cyclical views] human history and
the creation are moving in a certain direction. . . . We are moving toward a goal,
or a telos, in which history will come to a dramatic end, a final apocalyptic
battle between good and evil will be fought, God will emerge triumphant, and
a limitlessly good end state will exist. We can refer to this end state as the
kingdom of God or ‘the eschaton’.
(Davis 2008, p. 384)
It is specifically this kind of eschatology, though sometimes bereft of its belief in
a personal God, which is the focus of interest in this article.
Marxism as an atheistic eschatology

As a young man on the small island of Sado, Kita was already deeply influenced
by European Marxism. Even a superficial reading of his first book, Kokutairon and
pure socialism, reveals several references to Karl Marx, as well as to other socialist
thinkers such as August Bebel and Jean Jaures. Although Kita disagreed with
Marx on some key points (for example, he vehemently rejected Marx’s theory
of prices) and emphasized his own independent interpretation of socialism, he
was highly influenced by Marxist ideas. Beginning from the first lines of Kokuta-
iron, he declares himself ready to defend ‘scientific socialism’ against its critics,
and, in all of his subsequent writings, he praises Marx for his profound under-
standing of historical, economical and social development. He even goes so far
as to assert that the Marxist idea that ‘capital is an accumulation of plunder’
is an ‘unchanging truth equal to the law of gravitation’ (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp.
1–4, 14–17, 39, 431). Whether Kita was a ‘real Marxist’ or not (if there is in-
deed such a thing), he was heavily influenced by Marxism in one key point: his
perception of historical development. As we shall see many times in this article,
Kita interpreted history through a Marxist paradigm: as a linear development of
progress, pushed forward by class struggle from an utopian ‘primitive commu-
nism’, into feudalism, through capitalism, and finally into utopian socialism. By
the term ‘Marxist’, I do not necessarily mean the original intention of Karl Marx
as an author, as it is highly controversial whether he himself intended to develop
his theories in an eschatological direction. The eschatological worldview, often
called the ‘stage theory of historical materialism’, is based on a certain interpre-
tation of Marx’s thought by Friedrich Engels, which quickly became dominant
among ‘Marxist’ authors, intellectuals, activists, and politicians in Japan and else-
where (Lukács 1967, pp. 35–41, Walicki 1995, pp. 111–152, Halfin 2000, pp.
43–52, Webb 2000, pp. 36–42).1 Adhering to this view, Kita himself (1959, vol.
I, pp. 144, 201) defined his perception of history as teleology (mokutekiron),
a charged word that signifies the end of things as the final goal of historical
development.
Can we define this as an eschatological view of history? Traditionally, eschatol-
ogy is defined as a theistic idea. Marxism, on the other hand, is clearly atheistic.
But, does eschatology really require the existence of God? Philosophers and his-
torians such as Carl Löwith and Igal Halfin broadened the term ‘eschatology’
to include atheistic ideologies, specifically Marxism. As Halfin stated, Marxism
has a strong eschatological component, as it promotes ‘a linear concept of time
outlining a prescribed temporal motion of the proletariat from the “darkness” of
capitalism toward salvation in a classless society . . . [while] historical time had
a clearly demarcated end’ (2000, p. 1, cf. Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 24, 96–97,
213–215, 243–245, 270–271, 314–327). This bears a striking resemblance to
interpretations by most Marxist theoreticians, such as Engels, who see Marxist
history as beginning in a memory of a lost heaven at the dawn of times (primitive
communism and its demise), and moving through different stages of darkness.
Danny Orbach 343
Capitalism, which is described as the last and most extreme phase of darkness,
comes to an apocalyptic end. The Marxist version of the Christian Apocalypse
is the socialist revolution, envisioned as a total, final war between exploiters and
exploited. The end of this eschatological process, already rudimentarily evident
in early essays such as The German ideology, is clearly and concisely described in
The communist manifesto:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, a
fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society
at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes. . . . The advance of
industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation
of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to
association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under
its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates
products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-
diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
(Tucker 1972, pp. 335–336, 45)
The shining post-revolutionary utopia is not just another phase of history, but
the last one. Humanity will be dramatically transformed, and a ‘new man’ will be
created, not only in the social, but also in the physical sense. In the words of Leon
Trotsky, one of the leading Marxist theoreticians in Russia:
Man will, at last, begin to harmonize himself in earnest . . . he will want to
master first the semi-conscious and then also the unconscious processes of
his own organism . . . and, within the necessary limits, will subordinate them
to the control of reason. . . . The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens,
will once again enter the state of radical reconstruction and will become in its
own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selections and
psychological training.
(Trotsky 2005, pp. 205–207)
Trotsky and Engels both interpret Marx as envisioning an apocalyptic end of
history, which will end in an unchanging utopia. From this point of view, we can
define Marxism as an atheistic, apocalyptic, and utopian eschatology.
Nichiren Buddhism: a relative eschatology?

Jan Nattier, a noted scholar of Buddhism, stated:
to speak of Buddhist eschatology is, in a sense, a misnomer. If eschatology is
understood to refer to final things – that is, the idea that the world will one
day come to a definitive end – there is simply no parallel in Buddhist tradition.
On the contrary, Buddhist scriptures regularly refer to . . . a cycle of birth and
death of the universe. . . . Nor is there an end.
(Wall 2008, p. 151)
On the other hand, many Buddhist sects believe in an idea defined by Zwi
Werblowsky as ‘relative eschatology’ (1987, pp. 148–151). According to Nat-
tier, that means, on the cosmic level, ‘the end of a specific cycle of devolution
or evolution’ of the world, often accompanied by a universal apocalypse being
followed by rebirth. On the historic level, ‘Buddhist scriptures predict the demise
of the Buddhist religion itself ’ (Nattier 2008, p. 151). The Japanese Buddhist sect
of Nichiren is a perfect example of such a relative eschatology.
Kita converted to this Japanese Buddhist sect during World War I, just at the
time he was writing Unofficial history, and remained an ardent follower throughout
his life. Almost to his last day, Kita frequently read and recited the Lotus Sutra, the
scripture most revered by the sect. In a farewell letter to his Chinese adopted son,
Taiki, before his execution in 1937, he did not supply him with any political mes-
sage, but merely implored him to strictly follow the teachings of the Lotus Sutra
(Shigemoto 1979, pp. 99, 101, Laurinat 2006, pp. 47, 87, 89, Takeyama 2005, pp.
212–214, 251–300).2 Moreover, there are clear indications that he viewed him-
self as a new convert to Nichiren. For example, he named his second work Taishō
ankokuron, in a clear allusion to Nichiren’s famous The establishment of the legiti-
mate teaching for the protection of the country (Risshō ankokuron). The conversion to
Nichirenism did not create Kita’s eschatological basic assumptions, as they were
well established already in Kokutairon, but it helped to radicalize them. Therefore,
it is appropriate to say a few words about Nichirenism in order to understand its
contribution to the development of Kita’s eschatological worldview.
The sect of Nichiren was established by a charismatic Buddhist monk of the
same name, who lived in the turbulent times of the Kamakura period, which was
troubled by countless famines, plagues, and natural disasters, as well as internal
trouble and external wars (the two Mongol invasions in 1274 and 1281, respec-
tively). In Risshō ankokuron, and The opening of the eyes (Kaimokusho), two of his
most important works, Nichiren gloomily assesses his generation as corrupt and
wretched, a result of a historical process of the gradual degradation of Dharma,
the Buddhist law. The current generation, according to Nichiren, witnesses the
end of this process: Mappō, the end of the law, which may result in a terrible
apocalypse. This concept was hardly unique to Nichiren Buddhism, and in fact
was relatively common in Buddhist thought at the time. However, in Nichiren’s
writing it was introduced in particularly apocalyptic colors:
All the four directions will be afflicted by drought, and evil omens will appear
again and again. . . . Invaders [will] come to plunder the country and the com-
mon people [will] face annihilation. . . . the twenty eight constellations do not
move in their regular courses . . . huge fire consumes the nation, the people are
all burned to death . . . and huge floods drown the population.
(Nichiren 1990, pp. 17–18)
Though Nichiren did not doubt the basic Buddhist wisdom of cyclical historical
development, namely that the world is being endlessly destroyed and reborn, he
Danny Orbach 345
perceived the structure of each cycle as linear: beginning with a teaching of a Bud-
dha, and ending in Mappō and apocalypse. This apocalyptic eschatology, though
relative and diluted by cyclical thinking, deeply influenced Kita’s worldview, as
we shall see further below.
Eschatology in the writings of Kita Ikki

Earlier eschatology: Kokutairon and pure socialism (1906)
Kita Ikki was born in 1883 on Sado Island as Kita Terujirō, the son of a local sake
manufacturer. From his youth, he was influenced by anti-establishment ideas,
intimately related with the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement (Jiyū Minken
Undō), and with the nascent Japanese socialist movement. Kita converted to
socialism at a young age, and became associated with prominent socialist leaders
such as Kōtoku Shūsui. He was a youth of great talent, dreaming of a great
future and eager to prove his abilities. In 1906, he went to study in Tokyo, where
he became a journalist, a writer, and an integral part of the Japanese socialist
movement, though he differed from most of his comrades in his support for the
Russo-Japanese war (Kita Reikichi 1938, p. 270, Tanaka 1959, pp. 13–19, 27–28,
35, Matsuda 1964, pp. 430–431, Hayashi 1971, pp. 408–410). His first important
work, Kokutairon and pure socialism, published in May 1906, was banned almost
immediately by the authorities, apparently because of its scathing criticism of the
Japanese government.
Kokutairon and pure socialism can be best perceived as an effort to decipher the
underlying principles of Japanese historical development, in order to achieve three
main goals. The first one was to enlighten Japanese readers, as Kita assumed that,
by exposing them to the true stage of their historical development, they would
better comprehend reality. The second goal was to discredit official propaganda
on national Japanese character and on Japan’s past and present (the so-called
Kokutairon), by proving it false and detached from historical reality. The third
goal was to promote evolutionary change towards an ideal society guided by the
ideology of ‘pure socialism’. Kita assumed that such a utopian, pure society was
a prerequisite for the creation of a socialist world order of peace, prosperity, and
equality (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 1–2, 209–210, 213–216, 220).
Kita’s view of history was based both on Marxist dialectics and Social Dar-
winism. Accordingly, he portrayed the annals of mankind as a constant struggle
among classes, states, and individuals, in which the fittest survive. The end of each
phase is marked by a revolution, pushing history to the next stage. Thus, he claims
that a state’s entry into modernity is marked by a revolution which changes its
underlying structure from feudalism to a ‘people’s state’ (kōmin kokka), preparing
an ideal platform for the eventual development of socialism.3
Kita examines Japanese history according to this theory of linear evolution. In
his view, only in antiquity was Japan ruled by emperors. In the next stage, from
the middle ages to the Meiji Restoration, it entered the feudal phase under the
government of the samurai class. In 1868, through the Meiji restoration, Japan
finally moved to the current stage, that of a kōmin kokka (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp.
210, 216–217, 242, 244–245, 314–327).
However, the Meiji Restoration was betrayed. Kita, whose views closely resem-
bled the influential Kōza socialist school of thought, argued that oligarchs and
politicians usurped the government, stole the revolution from the people, and
used the emperor as a tool for their own selfish designs. Under their leadership,
the people were denied universal suffrage and other basic rights. The government
duped the people with baseless fairy tales regarding the alleged ‘divinity’ of the
emperor, and, worst of all, a new capitalist aristocracy built on big trusts like Mit-
subishi and Mitsui began exploiting the people through usurpation of the means
of production. Japan was therefore in a curious historical situation: legally, Japan
was a kōmin kokka, yet it was actually a feudal state ruled by aristocracy. The
real task of ‘pure socialism’, Kita argued, is to restore the Meiji Restoration to
its original pure state, eliminate the oligarchs and the capitalistic aristocracy, and
remodel Japan as a kōmin kokka, not only in theory, but also in practice (Kuno
and Tsurumi 1956, p. 125, Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 178, 376–380).4
The move towards revolution would be gradual and peaceful, mainly through
the education of the masses and the establishment of general suffrage. The new
regime of ‘pure socialism’ would finally create a just society, in which poverty
and crime would both be eliminated. What is the shape of this ideal society? The
answer to this question is intimately related to Kita’s utopian eschatology (Kita
1959, vol. I, pp. 209–210, 213–216, 220).5
Kokutairon, as we have seen above, is based on a revised scheme of Marxist
historical development. Marx, according to Engels’ dominant interpretation, saw
history as moving through class struggle from despotism, to feudalism, then to
bourgeois revolution, and finally, through an apocalyptic second revolution, into
socialism. Kita’s version of this historical development was different in some re-
spects. For him, the bourgeois phase (kōmin kokka) was characterized not only by
exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, but also by a genuine participa-
tion of the citizens in the government. Therefore, Kita clearly rejected the apoc-
alyptic dimension in Marxist eschatology, the violent destruction of the existing
order, and propagated a gradual, peaceful transition into socialism. Nevertheless,
he did not give up on the utopian element in Marxist thought. Contrary to that, he
radicalized it considerably, mixing it with Japanese popular religion and creating
a peculiar, personal mythology:
Socialism aims to achieve through itself the last stage of social evolu-
tion . . . Christ pointed to heaven yonder at the stars, but we modern people are
more knowledgeable than him, and thus progressing in steady steps towards
heaven on earth, to be realized at the near future.
(Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 181, 194)
Danny Orbach 347
And, this will be truly ‘heaven on earth’ in all senses. Humanity as we know it
will disappear and human-beings will be transformed into gods. Here, we must
dwell on a complex problem of definition. When Kita uses the term ‘god’ or
‘gods’, what does he mean? Literal translation of terms between English and
Japanese is always troublesome, especially in this case. Does Kita mean that
human beings will transform into ‘God’, in the sense of a monotheist one god,
or ‘gods’ in the Japanese polytheistic sense? This problem is compounded by the
lack of proper distinctions between singular and plural forms in Japanese. Kita
himself was probably aware of this, and thus usually differentiated the terms.
When mentioning God in a Christian context (for example, in his discussion of
the man as built in the image of God (1959, vol. I, p. 3)), he used the word kami
alone. The same term is used in Kokutairon as a metaphor (for example, 1959,
I, p. 42), when he claims that socialism wants to seize the ‘talent of God’ from
heaven and use it for the benefit of humanity. On the other hand, when he means
‘gods’ in the plural, like the multitude of gods mentioned in Japanese mythology,
he uses a slightly different term, shinrui, which may best be translated as ‘the race
of gods’. This term appears throughout the text, and I believe it is the key to
understanding Kita’s eschatological ideology.
How can we understand the term shinrui in this context? The first time it ap-
pears in the text is on page 86, during a heated diatribe against the landlord class.
The children of landlord families, Kita says, have the potential to develop into
gods, shinrui, but because they naturally imitate their cruel fathers and licentious
mothers, they end up becoming beasts in human form. Some pages later (1959,
vol. I, pp. 100–101), Kita writes that we, as humans, are positioned on the Dar-
winian evolutionary scale somewhere between beasts and gods. Here are examples
of two different, but interrelated meanings of the term shinrui in Kokutairon: a
high moral standing of a fully developed individual and an ontologically different
level of evolutionary development of the human race as a whole.
Nevertheless, the term shinrui is not only a metaphor for scientifically de-
veloped and happy human beings. Kita goes much further than that. After the
revolution, humans will become ‘gods’ not only in the spiritual, moral, or social
sense, but their physique will also change irrecoverably. The race of the gods will
be ontologically different from the race of human beings:
This stupid humanity, this despicably immoral humanity, this ugly humanity,
and even its daily life involving excrement and sexual intercourse will be quickly
destroyed. Its destruction and the appearance of the world of gods, shouldn’t
it fill our hearts with immense joy?
(Kita 1959, vol. I, p. 203)
It is interesting to note, that the two main characteristics of the divine utopia
are the absence of defecation and sexual relations. Indeed, Kita explains that
defecating is a ‘shameful and ugly’ act, of which we become more and more
ashamed as we develop. Thus, adults are more ashamed of excrement than chil-
dren, and civilized people more than barbarians. In the perfect ‘world of gods’,
there is no place for defecating, as scientific and biological-evolutionary devel-
opment will surely make it unnecessary (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 195–200). The
subject of defecating, as Takeyama Morio rightly observes, is raised rather ob-
sessively again and again in Kokutairon. Hence, he concluded that Kita suffered
from an acute anal fixation, leading Kita to identify defecation and its associations
with parental authority, further projected on a reactionary political authority to
be annihilated in the future utopia (Takeyama 2005, pp. 57–58). Anal fixation
or not, it is clear that Kita presents here a radical and somewhat bizarre version
of Marxist eschatology: not only will the social conditions be ideal, utopian, and
unchanging, but the ‘shameful’ parts of human physique will irreversibly disap-
pear. In short, Kita used Marxist eschatology as a basis for his own personal
mythology.
This divine utopia, Kita stresses, would be nowhere else but in this world, and,
in order to achieve it, we must struggle tirelessly. In other words, we must ‘create
a bridge’ (kakyō) between the world as it is (corrupted Japanese society) and the
world as it should be (future socialist utopia). To this end, Kita hoped to make
democratic socialism a new ‘scientific’ and ‘philosophical’ religion. He sought
to combine teleological philosophy, whose aim is to understand the destination
telos (goal) of history, with science, which describes biological evolution. In his
opinion, this ‘scientific religion’ (kagakuteki shūkyō) is the only way to bridge the
gap and gradually transform humans into gods (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 204–205).
Unofficial history of the Chinese revolution (1916)

While Kita was writing Kokutairon, he denied the need for a violent revolution.
His opinions began to change after Kokutairon was banned by the authorities in
May 1906. Kita, who experienced a short period of euphoria after the enthusiastic
reception of Kokutairon by prominent socialist and even liberal critics, promptly
sank into despair. His brother, Reikichi, recalled that he burst out crying upon
hearing the news (Kita Reikichi 1938, p. 286). Moreover, he interpreted the
banning as proof that enlightening the populace may not be as easy as he first
thought. Perhaps, he concluded, it is not enough to promote the evolutionary
transition into ‘gods’ through collective intellectual and social effort; one must
resort to violent, revolutionary ways. However, it would take many years before
he wrote a new, revised revolutionary theory for his own Japan. Meanwhile, his
new ideas developed in another arena, in China.
In 1911, following his interaction with prominent Chinese revolutionaries (es-
pecially Song Jiao-Ren), Kita tried to implement his ideas by participating in the
Chinese Xinhai Republican Revolution (1911), though his real role in the events
was marginal at best. His experience in China, summarized in his 1916 published
book, Unofficial history, led him to revise his revolutionary theory, making its
Danny Orbach 349
language much more brutal and his methods far more violent (Kita Reikichi
1938, pp. 264, 287–288, Wilson 1969, pp. 45–50, Hayashi 1971, pp. 409–410,
Huang 2001, p. 307, Matsumoto 2004, III, pp. 22–29).
Written between 1915 and 1916, Unofficial history was intended, according
to its author, to enlighten Japanese policy-makers concerning ‘the various ideas
of the Chinese revolutionary party, their synthesis and awakening . . . the real
story behind the eruption of the revolution plus the fusion and fragmentation of
the various forces . . . [as well as] the worth of the assistance given by Japanese
nationals’ (Kita 1959, vol. II, p. 1).6 Kita considered his book necessary to cure
the ignorance of Japanese statesmen regarding the real situation in China. He
found Japanese policy in China disastrous, especially the Japanese-British co-
operation in the exploitation of the mainland. With growing trepidation, he
watched the rise of anti-Japanese sentiment in China, the result of Japan’s ag-
gressive policy, especially after the Twenty-One Demands presented to China by

the cabinet of Ōkuma Shigenobu. Nevertheless, Kita emphasized in the intro-
duction that the book was written not only to serve Japanese national interests,
but also to express sympathy with his Chinese comrades and promote a better
future for both countries (Kita 1959, vol. II, pp. 1, 4, 27–29, Hayashi 1971,
pp. 410–411).
Unofficial history is first and foremost an invaluable, though very biased, account
of the 1911 revolution in China, particularly the relationship among the leaders
and the role of the Japanese revolutionary adventurers, the so-called ‘China mer-
cenaries’ (Shina Rōnin). In short, one may say that Unofficial history, above all,
is a scathing criticism of the policy of Sun Yat-Sen, the leader of the revolution,
and of his excessive reliance on Western revolutionary theory. Kita also castigates
Sun’s dependence on aid and ideas from foreign countries, especially the United
States. The first part of the book is a detailed narration of the revolution from the
author’s point of view. In the second part, more general ideological themes are
developed. As we are interested here not in the Chinese revolution in itself, but
in the development of Kita’s ideas, the second part of Unofficial history will be the
main focus of our discussion.
It is important to note that Unofficial history is different from Kokutairon in
significant ways. For example, class struggle is hardly present while nationalism
plays a much greater role. The change has led some scholars, like Kuno Osamu
and Tsurumi Shunsuke (1956, pp. 163, 165), to perceive Unofficial history as a
turning point in Kita’s ideology from socialism to nationalism. In a way, this is true,
but one should not forget that Kita never abandoned the eschatological-utopian
vision outlined in Kokutairon; he stressed its validity in his later book, Fundamental
principles for the reorganization of Japan (see below), as well as during his trial
(Hayashi 1971, p. 409). In Unofficial history, Kita also emphasizes this vision,
though in distinctly different terms. The key term ‘race of gods’ (shinrui), for
example, is replaced with ‘paradise of freedom’ (jiyū no rakudo). But, in essence,
the eschatological final destination stays the same.
However, I believe that Kuno and Tsurumi missed the most important point,
which makes Unofficial history the real watershed in Kita’s intellectual career: the
shift in his view concerning the attainment of revolutionary knowledge. In other
words, this book demonstrated a shift in his epistemology.
Epistemology is the sub-field of philosophy that primarily deals with the ways
in which knowledge is attained. Epistemological questions are crucial to thinkers
like Kita, who always stress knowledge as a prerequisite for revolution. In the
first words of his introduction to Kokutairon, Kita emphasizes that in order to
make a real change in society, one needs ‘not meticulous analytic research, but
all encompassing and unifying intelligence’ (1959, vol. I, p. 1). Moreover, great
chunks of the fifth part of the book, ‘The enlightenment movement of socialism’,
are devoted to the great educational enterprise, which serves as a prerequisite
to the anticipated peaceful revolution. The word kakyō, another key term in
Kokutairon, also alludes to the role of knowledge in bridging the gap between the
current miserable situation and the future socialist utopia (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp.
204–205).
However, in Unofficial history, Kita undergoes a dramatic transformation in
his basic epistemological assumptions. Just as his vision of the revolution, as we
shall see further below, turns from peaceful to violent, his epistemology ceases
to be based on an open-to-all ‘enlightenment’ (keimō) movement, and increas-
ingly bases itself on a tiny revolutionary elite who understands ‘the will of heaven’
(tenmei). This particular epistemology I will name hereafter ‘Gnostic’, as it is
based on the following assumptions: (1) certain knowledge is necessary for sal-
vation, (2) this knowledge is derived from an external source (god, heaven, a
prophet), and (3) this knowledge is not available to anyone but the initiated
few.
We do not know exactly what the reasons for this important transition were,
but, considering the fact that before writing Unofficial history Kita had recently
converted to Nichiren Buddhism, one may suspect the influence of Nichirenian
theology. This assumption may be confirmed by the introduction to Unofficial
history, wherein Kita defines his book as Taishō ankokuron, in a clear allusion to
Nichiren’s Risshō ankokuron. We have already discussed the apocalyptic eschatol-
ogy in Nichiren Buddhism, but it is also important to note its underlying Gnostic
epistemology. In his second book, The opening of the eyes (Kaimokuron), Nichiren
clearly bases his authority on his mastery of salvational knowledge, which is not
available to just anyone. As these are the days of Mappō, the end of the law, nor-
mal people cannot draw their own conclusions from the Buddhist sutras. Instead,
they should obey Nichiren, the only person who possesses the correct knowledge,
not because his arguments are necessarily more convincing, but because he is
the ‘sovereign, father and mother of the people of Japan’. This has a striking
resemblance to Kita’s epistemology in Unofficial history.
The first hint of this epistemological transition is in Kita’s insistence, in the
first chapters of Unofficial history, that a true revolution has to come from within
Danny Orbach 351
the nation, without any assistance from outside. Revolution is, after all, a mark
of historical transition, ‘the voice of awakening struggling to be born from the
corpse of a dead nation, sunk in corruption and depravity’. If, in Kokutairon, the
revolutionary knowledge does not dwell in a specific person or nation, but in a
collective intellectual and social effort, in Unofficial history it is found within the
specific nation alone (Kita 1959, vol. II, pp. 5–13, 15–20, 25–27, 40, 153–155;
Matsumoto 2004, pp. 33–34, 52).7
However, Kita takes it a step further. This knowledge is not concentrated
in the whole nation, or in an intellectual or political movement (for example,
the socialist party). Rather, it is concentrated in the character of one person,
described by Kita as the ‘revolutionary hero’ (gōketsu, eiyū, hı̄rō). Kita adhered
to these epistemological notions to his last day, and they seem to be the main
bulwark upon which his future revolutionary theory rested.
The revolutionary leader, according to Kita, is above all a ‘hero’, acting on the
stage of history, not to demonstrate his selfless bravery, but to push his nation
towards the future, revolutionary utopia. Thus, the hero’s actions must be based
on correct knowledge and a true understanding of reality. He is bound to act out
of careful planning and not only out of righteous indignation against the current
order.
As revolutions erupt only in specific historical settings, the hero must appear
at the right moment to take advantage of the government’s military weakness and
corruption and start the revolution and revive the nation by rooting out the ‘elites
of the dead country’ (bōkoku kaikyū) and replacing them with new, patriotic elites
(kōkoku kaikyū). He has to intuitively feel the heartbeat of history, in order to
quickly grab the right moment for action, ‘always appearing and disappearing
as a flash of light’ (Kita 1959, vol. II, pp. 10–11, 21–22, 34; Matsumoto 2004,
p. 52). The term ‘flash of light’ (senkō) is very characteristic of this Gnostic trait
of revolutionary knowledge, as something divine that must be grasped by the rare
individual who can see it.
Out of the several French, Japanese, and Chinese revolutionary heroes men-
tioned in Unofficial history, the most impressive is undoubtedly Song Jiao-Ren,
Kita’s close friend, co-founder of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Guomindang).
Song, who serves as the perfect role model for the revolutionary hero, is charac-
terized by Kita primarily through his spiritual purity. ‘The real worth [of Song]’,
he writes, ‘ . . . was not in his resourcefulness, scholarship or polemic articles,
but rather in his consistent, resolute, sincere and pure-hearted patriotism. . . .
Actually, his patriotic spirit that appeared during a mortal crisis is equivalent to
those of the men of old’ (1959, vol. II, p. 30). The followers of this hero obey
his commands, not only out of rational support for his political agenda, but also
irrational admiration for his charisma. It is important to note here that Kita wrote
that encountering such a hero is almost equivalent to a religious experience: ‘hap-
pily taking an oath to follow his orders, as a hero appointed to rule by the will of
heaven’ (1959, vol. II, p. 32).
This Gnostic epistemology is intimately bound up with violence. If the knowl-

edge is spread among a large group of people, there is always room for disagree-
ment and debate. But, if the heroic leader attains his knowledge from the ‘will
of heaven’, no living mortal can defy him. One must either obey or perish. Kita
(1959, vol. II, pp. 153-156, 158–159) makes this very clear in his discussion of
past heroes of the French Revolution and the Meiji Restoration. Robespierre,
though being a gentle person, did not hesitate to order the execution of 18,000
people in Paris for the cause of freedom. Likewise, the Meiji Emperor, though he
had a heart of Buddha, did not hesitate to order the death of Saigō Takamori, his
most loyal retainer, in order to preserve the unity of the country.
Kita does not leave any place for doubt. These revolutionary heroes do not
need to be elected by the people or to waste their time in rallies, meetings, and
conferences. Instead, they must obey the will of heaven as they fathom it, and
coerce other people to obey, by force if necessary. The leader, according to Kita,
is ‘holding in his left hand the scriptures of freedom, and in his right the sword
of tyranny’, and striving to ‘purge the paradise of freedom through the blood
bath of tyranny’. The salvation (‘paradise of freedom’) that the hero offers to the
nation enables him not only to transcend accepted morality, but also to murder
and slaughter with impunity.
As expected, this dramatic shift in Kita’s epistemology is intimately bound up
with an increasing lack of tolerance towards alternative sources of knowledge. Kita
denigrated all other authorities on China, except for Song. The Japanese Sinolo-
gists, for example, are described as ‘long sleeves’ (nagasode), a term traditionally
reserved for court nobles and scholars, here used ironically to mock arrogant and
detached intellectuals. Even inside China, the hero must suffer no intellectual
competition. Confucian scholars who spread erroneous teachings need to be ex-
ecuted and their scriptures burned. In short, the revolutionary hero Song and his
Japanese spokesman Kita are the only legitimate sources of revolutionary knowl-
edge (Kita 1959, vol. II, pp. 2–4, 16, 22, 26, 158, 162–163). It is important to
note that Kita’s description teaches us almost nothing about Song as a historical
figure. In fact, it is rather ironic that a Chinese revolutionary leader such as Song
Jiao-Ren, perhaps the most democratic and liberal of all his peers, was associated
in Kita’s fantasy with limitless, murderous dictatorship (Bergère 1998, p. 227).8
Kita’s newly conceived ideas had nothing to do with the ‘real’ Song, as they
were the creation of his rich imagination. Thus, they were reflected not only in
his epistemological shift, but also in a revised eschatological vision. The vision of
a peaceful revolution, outlined in Kokutairon, gives way in Unofficial history to a
violent revolution. His new conception is that a violent and bloody world war be-
tween the different world powers is a necessary prerequisite for the desired utopia.
Violence goes hand in hand with the epistemological shift, and leads in turn to a
polarized worldview of the prophet as the embodiment of absolute good and his
rivals as the manifestation of absolute evil (Kita 1959, vol. II, pp. 153–154, 156).9
Danny Orbach 353
The eschatological vision already developed in Kokutairon and pure socialism and
the Gnostic epistemology of Unofficial history are the underlying ideas for Kita’s
third, last, and most influential work, Fundamental principles for the reorganization
of Japan.
General principles for the reorganization of Japan (1919)

In 1920, following his disappointment with the Chinese revolution, Japanese
foreign policy in China, and the increasing anti-Japanese sentiment there, Kita
returned to Japan with his family and promptly began to involve himself in politi-
cal activity. From 1919 to 1923, he was active in the Yūzonsha (Society of Those
Who Yet Remain), a nationalist association whose members were a curious mix-
ture of romantics, radicals, and patriots from different backgrounds. The main
tactic of the Yūzonsha was to acquire friends in high circles in order to promote the
aims of the society. In 1923, following growing tensions between Kita and Okawa
Shūmei, the leading figure in the Yūzonsha, the society collapsed and Kita retired
from revolutionary activity. During the 1920s and 1930s, he gathered around him
a gang of toughs, and earned his living by using his influence in nationalist circles
to extort money from businessmen and politicians. Otherwise, he spent most of
his time chanting the Lotus Sutra, praying in temples and summoning ghosts of
various Japanese historical figures using his wife as a medium. His actual political
power was waning and would have probably faded away, if not for a short booklet
that he had written in 1919 (Wilson 1969, pp. 95–110, Hayashi 1971, p. 411,
Szpilman 2002, p. 471–472, Takeyama 2005, pp. 223–231, 261–275).
This work, called Fundamental principles for the reorganization of Japan, became,
according to Ben Ami Shillony (1973, pp. 76–77), one of the main sources of
influence on young nationalist radicals, especially in the army. It was certainly
a source of inspiration for the radical young officers who were responsible for a
series of political assassinations in the first half of the 1930s, culminating in the
abortive coup d’état of 26 February 1936.
Contrary to the sophisticated language of Kokutairon, which was written for a
scholarly audience, Reorganization was written in clear, lucid language, using the
more masculine katakana script. It was not addressed to the masses, but mainly to
potential revolutionary heroes – political radicals, both civilians and military, who
were supposed to be the main bearers of the coming revolution. This practical
handbook begins, just like Kokutairon and Unofficial history, with the description
of an urgent problem:
The great empire of Japan is at a national turning point as it confronts inter-

nal troubles and foreign danger. . . . Abroad, be it Britain, the United States,
Germany, Russia, there is not a single power that has not violated its word; even
our neighbor China, to whom we have provided protection since the Russo-
Japanese war, has rewarded us with contempt. Truly, we are a small island
isolated in the Eastern Sea. There is a danger that the country founded by our
ancestors will disappear if we make one miscalculation, for we see again the
danger of internal troubles and foreign danger that our country faced at the
end of the Tokugawa period and the Meiji Restoration.
(cited in Tankha 2006, p. 167)
The logic of Reorganization is manifest in the last sentence of the passage. Japan
is in mortal danger, because it is facing ‘internal troubles and foreign danger’,
in that order. Therefore, it is necessary to solve the ‘internal troubles’ before
eliminating the ‘foreign danger’, as the former are the causes of the latter. This
must be understood in the framework of the linear, eschatological perception of
time already developed by Kita in Kokutairon and especially in Unofficial history.
The reorganization must be carried out to prepare Japan for its destiny and move
history forward to the next stage when Japan would be able ‘to shed the light of
Heaven on all the people around the world’ (Tankha 2006, p. 229, cf. Kita 1959,
vol. II, pp. 160–161). This time, it would be accomplished through a super-
revolution, namely a world war. But, in order to be ready for this apocalyptic
challenge, Japan has to reform itself radically, curtailing the power of the great
capitalists and implementing far-reaching social reforms. Purifying one’s own
camp is a necessary prerequisite for victory over an external enemy and the
attainment of final salvation.
Here, Kita envisions a new Japanese empire, benevolent and thus radically
different from the exploiting empires of the West. Besides its current colonies in
Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan, Japan will also occupy Australia, Eastern Siberia,
and Hong Kong. This will lead to a holy war against Russia, the biggest landlord
in Northeast Asia, and Great Britain, always the embodiment of evil in Kita Ikki’s
writing. Japan will ally with the United States, and will use naval power to destroy
the British fleet and free China and India. In a way, one may interpret it as yet
another Kita-style version of Marxist apocalyptic eschatology, where countries
play the roles of social classes (though this interpretation of Marxist eschatology
was hardly unique to Kita). Japan, which represents the world proletariat, has to
beat the feudal landlords (Russia) and the capitalist bourgeoisie (Great Britain)
(Tankha 2006, pp. 221–227).
Thus, a new world order will be formed, and Japan will gradually take the lead
and bring the world to a new phase of ‘feudal peace’. The meaning of this phrase
is that Japan will preside over other powers and countries just as the Tokugawa
shogunate ruled the feudal domains during the Edo period. Considering Kita’s
eschatological dialectics, this feudal order will inevitably give way in the future to
a new ‘democratic phase’, a utopia of world unification, probably under Japanese
leadership. This vision will not materialize before a bloody second world war, in
which Japan will ‘shed the light of Heaven on all the people of the world. The com-
ing again of Christ, prophesied all over the world, is actually the Japanese people’s
scripture and sword . . . on the road to Heaven there is no peace without war’
Danny Orbach 355
(Tankha 2006, pp. 228–229). Kita, almost as a biblical (or Nichirenian) prophet,
is fuming with anger: ‘the First World War was like a punishment from heaven for
the arrogant behavior of European nations, comparable to Noah’s flood’ (2006,
p. 167). This is a radicalized version of Kita’s previous eschatological vision. If,
in Unofficial history, his vision was perceived as local to China, Reorganization
expands it into a universal vision for the whole world.
The similarities between Reorganization and Unofficial history do not end in
eschatology. The epistemological Gnostic basic assumptions are still the same.
Just as the Chinese hero in Unofficial history has to obey the will of heaven and lead
the nation into salvation, ‘purging the paradise of freedom through the bloodbath
of tyranny’, the Japanese heroes of Reorganization are entitled to rule the nation
with the iron fist of a military regime. Only after three years, when the enemies
of the revolution will already be out of the way, will the people be given universal
suffrage. However, the elections will be meaningless, insofar as the parliament

envisioned in Reorganization is no more than a rubber stamp to the real power elite,
the so-called ‘Advisory Committee to the Throne’. Kita had already portrayed
the nature of this ‘Advisory Committee’ in Unofficial history. The sovereign, he
emphasizes once more, has to be ‘advised’ by the ‘revolution elders’ (kakumei no
genkun). The members of this informal group would not be elected by anyone,
but rather elect themselves. With the emperor as a symbolical figurehead, this
new elite will lead Japan to victory in an apocalyptic world war, and will open the
way for a utopian world unification (Kita 1959, vol. II, p. 159).
Who would be the leader of this new heroic nation, destined to ‘shed the light of
heaven’ on the whole world and herald the ‘coming of Christ’? According to Kita,
the Chosen One will be the people’s Emperor, a sovereign of divine character.
The revolution, far from abolishing monarchy, was meant to destroy the wicked
forces of capitalism separating the Emperor from the people. Thus, the divine
sovereign will be a true representative of the nation and a worthy manifestation of
its will (Tankha 2006, pp. 170–171, 175–176, 229).
However, one should not be misled by Kita’s ambiguous phrases, such as
‘the divine character of the Emperor’, ‘the people’s Emperor’, or ‘the ruler of
the nation’, and conclude that he preached direct imperial rule. Rather, as Brij
Tankha writes, Kita intended to ‘use the Emperor as symbol of a new political
order rather than a restored classical institution’. In order to grasp the true role of
the imperial throne in Reorganization, it is necessary to understand that, in fact,
Kita never did identify the Emperor with the revolutionary hero, the harbinger of
salvation. In Unofficial history, which could be seen as the philosophical basis of
Reorganization, the hero is described as a personage with a unique character, one
of pure motives and gifted with true understanding of both heavenly and popular
will; he is, in other words, master of the revolutionary Gnosis (Tankha 2006, p.
131). However, in Reorganization, the ‘Emperor of the People’, is depicted as a
faceless and characterless formal leader, destined to be the mere symbol of the
new ‘People’s Japan’.
Moreover, throughout the booklet, Kita asserts what the Emperor must do, for
example, he should wed an Imperial princess with a Korean prince in order to unify
the two Empires, and give away the property of the Imperial family. The Emperor
has no freedom of choice in these matters. Even when Kita endows him with the
authority to appoint the advisory council, it is well understood from the context
that this will be done only after three years of martial law, or, in other words,
when the new revolutionary elite becomes strong enough to ‘advise’ the Emperor
whom to appoint, exactly as it was done after the Meiji Restoration (Tankha
2006, pp. 169–173, 175, 209). Thus, in Reorganization, as in Kokutairon, the
Emperor was no more than a tool in the implementation of Kita’s eschatological
vision.
To sum up, Reorganization describes in detail the end of the eschatological
linear process already outlined in Kokutairon. This is a practical and detailed plan
to help Japan, and, through it, all humanity, to fulfill the eschatological vision of
Kokutairon and Unofficial history. In the end, this utopian vision appears as the
only consistent idea in Kita’s writings, as nation, class, government, emperor, and
even socialism, are mere tools for its implementation.
Conclusion
The analysis presented above, though well contained inside the thought of Kita
Ikki, may also have some repercussions on our understanding of Japanese modern
intellectual history as a whole. The popular ‘geographical’ metaphor of ‘right’
versus ‘left’, so often used to describe systems of modern political thought, creates
the impression of a continuum or a spectrum, where, naturally, radical right and
radical left are located far away from each other at the two extremes. However,
in the study of intellectual history in general, and Japanese intellectual history in
particular, scholars often find that radical ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ politics are
sometimes very much alike. In other words, the ‘earth’ of political thought, like
the real earth, is round, not flat, and the poles are actually adjacent.
The ‘right-left’ metaphor is therefore not easy to maintain. Ben-Amy Shillony,
in his study of the ‘right-wing’ young officers, finds numerous references to radical
‘left-wing’ political terms such as ‘abolition of the privileged classes’ and ‘pro-
letarian consciousness’, but nevertheless concludes that these officers should be
defined as ‘right-wing’, because the focal point of their thought was the nation
and not the working class (Shillony 1973, pp. 65–67, 79). George Wilson, author
of the first English-language biography of Kita Ikki, developed an elaborate, if
not awkward, categorization system, using such terms as ‘center extremism’ in
order to explain the ideological affinities between the ‘poles’ in the Japanese po-
litical spectrum (1969, pp. 90–94). Here, the following question may be raised:
is it worth investing so much intellectual effort in preserving the geographical
‘right-left’ metaphor? The smooth movement of Kita and others between the
two poles suggests that sometimes it may be a burden more than an asset in our
Danny Orbach 357
understanding of modern Japanese political thought. This point has already been
made by many scholars of modern Japanese history (Itō Takashi (1973, pp.
488–489) is only one prominent example), and it seems that Kita’s intellectual
career is yet more proof of its validity.
The same is true of such neat categories as ‘socialist’ and ‘fascist’. The am-
biguity and the grey zone between the two were already recognized by several
theoreticians of fascism, even if some of them argue that fascism should be seen
as a distinctive ideology (Sternhell 1986, Renton 2004). Itō Takashi highlighted
the similarity between the radical right and the radical left in Japan, so as to
cast doubt on the mere applicability of the term ‘fascist’ to the Japanese context.
Though this was recently debated by some scholars, who strongly argued that
there was a distinct ‘fascism’ in Japan (Reynolds 2004, Tansman 2009), it seems
from the above analysis that Kita Ikki’s case further highlights the ambiguity be-
tween ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’ in Japan. Though Kita was defined by Maruyama
as the ‘father of Japanese fascism’ (1969, p. 28), it seems that attempts to define
him as socialist or fascist ‘[gloss] over the complexities inherent in classifying those
who do not fit neatly into one . . . category’ (Tankha 2006, p. 106). Therefore,
there may be a need, in the future, to take a fresh look at radical political thought,
in Japan and elsewhere, using alternative definitions while overcoming worn-out
terms such as ‘left’ and ‘right’, ‘socialism’ and ‘fascism’.
In this article, I have tried to suggest the term ‘utopian eschatology’ as an
alternative that can be applied equally to ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist’ radical thinkers.
As the foregoing analysis clearly demonstrated, it may be seen as a central axis
in Kita’s thought, though certainly not the only one. Rather, the perspective of
utopian eschatology does not deny previous terms like socialism and fascism – it
just places them in a different context. How then, does eschatological thinking
coexist with other elements in Kita’s intellectual world?
Kita’s younger brother, Reikichi considered statism (kokken), respect for the
sovereign (sonnō), and people’s rights (minken), as the most important ideas in
his brother’s thought (Kita Reikichi 1938, pp. 269, 281). In this sense, curiously,
he is in agreement with most biographers and scholars who studied the life of his
elder brother. Many agree that people’s rights, nationalism, and (at least in the
later phase of his life) adherence to the Emperor system, were the most important
characteristics of Kita’s ideology. Could we still hold this view after the rereading
offered in this article? My impression is that all of these components did indeed
coexist in Kita Ikki’s thought, but none of them could be seen as its main axis or
connecting thread.
Let us take, for example, the question of people’s rights, which for Kita are
mainly social rights. Were it indeed his central concern, he would have been justly
labeled as conventional socialist. True, this concept appears again and again in all
of his works. In Kokutairon, he attacks the ‘new nobility’, oligarchs, politicians, and
business magnates, who plunder the people and cause them to languish in poverty.
Unofficial history is a highly sympathetic account of the Chinese revolution, and
was written, according to Kita, mainly out of sympathy for the Chinese people
and their plight (Hayashi 1971, p. 410). Even in Reorganization, Kita devotes
long paragraphs to the plight of the Japanese masses under the misrule of corrupt
politicians and capitalists. However, to perceive the people’s rights as his main
concern would be a gross mistake. For Kita, human rights are always conditioned
by the interests of the community. The state is authorized to endow rights, and
also to take them away at its discretion (Kita 1959, vol. I, pp. 213–214, 249,
Tankha 2006, pp. 204, 6, 12).
Can we define statism as the main axis of Kita’s thought? Kita’s emphasis
on the state prompted many scholars to think that he was indeed the ‘father of
Japanese fascism’ (Maruyama 1969, p. 28). However, for a fascist (at least in the
Italian sense), the state and its interests form an end in itself. Benito Mussolini
noted that ‘[t]he Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it
no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood,
Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive
of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people’
(1935, p. 14). The theoretician Kevin Passmore defined fascism along similar
lines as ‘a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in
exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of
loyalty’ (2002, p. 31). According to these two definitions, Kita was certainly not
a fascist. For him, the state was not placed above ‘all other sources of loyalty’, but
rather used only as a tool for the implementation of the utopia already outlined in
Kokutairon and further developed in Unofficial history and Reorganization: a world
federation under Japanese leadership, which will put an end to wars and poverty,
and may finally lead to world unification. Japan is only the medium through which
this utopia will spread around the world.
We have seen that in Kokutairon the divinity of the Emperor was regarded as
nothing more than a stupid fairy tale, because he was used by the Japanese elites
against the implementation of Kita’s utopia. But, after Kita gathered that the
Emperor might be useful for the ‘holy’ utopia, then he, too, becomes holy and
divine. Thus, we remarked that, as seen in Reorganization, Kita’s loyalty to the
Emperor and the declaration of his ‘divinity’ are no more than a tactic to unite
the people and advance them toward Kita’s utopia.
My analysis of Kokutairon, Unofficial history, and Reorganization shows that the
eclectic components of Kita’s thought are not overshadowing or contradictory. He
combined socialist, monarchist, and fascist elements, but never was a conventional
socialist, monarchist, or fascist. Eschatological basic assumptions about time,
history, and revolution underlay Kita’s eclectic views, and only those assumptions
appear solid and enduring.
We might then conclude that, more than anything else, Kita was an eschato-
logical, utopian visionary. Only an analysis of his thought in these terms can help
us to perceive the contradictions in his ideology as a part of a greater ideological
whole.
Danny Orbach 359
Notes
1. The question of whether Marxist utopian thinking should be traced also to Marx, or only to
Engels, is a relatively long-standing debate among interpreters. György Lukács was one of the
first prominent Marxist intellectuals to criticize Engels’ erroneous interpretation, in his view, of
Marxian philosophy. The ‘Marx versus Engels’ argument was further radicalized by subsequent
thinkers such as Leszek Kolakowsky and Norman Levine. Thus, the tendency among not a
few Marx scholars in the west was to read Marx without resorting to the ‘stages theory’ of
Engels. This approach is definitely not shared by all modern interpreters of Marx. Darren
Webb, for example, believes that Marx did, accidentally, create a utopia while trying to do away
with previous utopian thinking. In the same vein, Andrzej Walicki and Yigal Halfin both argue
that the source of Marxist eschatological, utopian thinking could be traced to both Marx and
Engels.
2. Although some historians, such as Shigemoto Tokoro, accused Kita of opportunistically adopt-
ing Nichiren and the Lotus Sutra only to justify his previous his ‘fascist’ creed, much evidence
points to the fact that he was a devout, even fanatic, believer. See, for example, Takeyama
Morio’s (2005) analysis of Kita’s ‘spirituality’ and the devotion to the Lotus Sutra in his
diary.
3. This is a rather unusual term, unique to Kita, as a national state is usually referred to as kokumin
kokka. Several assumptions are possible as to the origin of the term kōmin kokka, but it would not
be unreasonable to suppose that Kita played on the sound resemblance to kōmin kokka, namely
‘the Emperor’s state’, having the same initial sound (kō), written with a different character. This
may hint at Kita’s main point, that the people should have the role previously assigned to the
Emperor.
4. This idea has a striking similarity to the later concept of the Showa Restoration, popular in the
Seinen Shōkō Undō.
5. Kita attacks particularly the myths of the eternity of Japan’s kokutai and the ‘undivided line of
Emperors for ages eternal’ (bansei ikkei).
6. For a full text online version see: http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/∼bokujin/shiryou1/chinakakumei3.
html
7. The quote is from Kita (1959, II, 11). However, the one exception to this rule is Japan. China, as
a dead nation, must rely on Japanese ideas of democracy and modernity in order to be revived.
Japan is, after all, China’s Asian neighbor, and the similarities between the two nations’ ‘Eastern
ideas’ make the Japanese ideals, unlike the Western ones, relevant in the Chinese context. But
China should eschew any financial or military aid, even from Japan.
8. For Kita’s attitude towards the Shina Rōnin, see also Tanaka 1959: 152.
9. See my discussion of similar phenomena in nineteenth-century Chinese revolutionary ideology,
published in Hebrew (Orbach 2008, pp. 90–106).
References
Bergère, Marie Claire, 1998. Sun Yat-Sen. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Davis, Stephen T., 2008. Eschatology and resurrection. In: Jerry L. Walls, ed., The Oxford handbook
of eschatology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 384–398.
Fujiwara, Hirosato, 1954. Gijikakumeisha no yakuwari: seinen shōkō, minkan uyoku o chūshin
toshita. Shisō, 355, 48–75.
Halfin, Igal, 2000. From darkness to light: class, consciousness and salvation in revolutionary Russia.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hayashi, Shigeru, ed., 1971. Nini roku jiken hiroku, Vol. 3. Tokyo: Shōgakkan.
Huang, Tzu Chin, 2001. Bei Yi Hui de Ge Ming Qing Jie: Zai Zhong Ri Liang Guo Cong shi Ge Ming
de Li Cheng. Taipei: Minguo 90.
Itō, Takashi, 1973. The role of right-wing organizations in Japan. In: Dorothy Borg and Okamoto
Shumpei, eds, Pearl Harbor as history: Japanese American relations 1931–1941. New York:
Columbia University Press, 487–511.
Kita, Ikki, 1959. Kita Ikki chosakushū. Tokyo: Misuzu Shobō.
Kita, Reikichi, 1938. Shisō to seikatsu. Tokyo: Nihon Shosō.
Kume, Yasuhiro, 1998. Kita Ikki: aru junsei shakaishugisha. Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō.
Kuno, Osamu and Tsurumi, Shunsuke, 1956. Gendai Nihon no shishō: sono itsutsu no uzu. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Laurinat, Marion, 2006. Kita Ikki (1883–1937) und der Februarputsch 1936: eine historische Unter-
suchung japanischer Quellen des Militargerichtsverfahrens. Berlin: Lit.
Lukács, György, 1967. History and class consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin
Press.
Maruyama, Masao, 1969. Thought and behavior in modern Japanese politics. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. Original, 1964. Gendai seiji to shisō no kōdō, Vol. 2. Tokyo: Miraisha.
Matsuda, Michio, 1964. Nihon oyobi Roshia no Shoki Shakaishugi: Gerutsen to Kita Ikki.
In: Kuwabara Takeo, ed., Burujuwa kakumei no hikakuteki kenkyū. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō,
421–434.
Matsumoto, Ken’ichi, 2004. Hyōden Kita Ikki, Vol. 3, chūgoku nationarisumu no tadanaka e. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Mussolini, Benito, 1935. Fascism: doctrine and institutions. Rome: Ardita.
Nattier, Jan, 2008. Buddhist eschatology. In: Jerry L. Walls, ed., The Oxford handbook of eschatology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151–169.
Nichiren, 1990. Selected writings of Nichiren. Trans. Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Orbach, Danny, 2008. Hadiber Lo Tirtzah Bemered Ha-Taiping: Teologia Ve-Yisuma Halacha
Le-ma’ase. Zmanim, 104, 90–106.
Passmore, Kevin, 2002. Fascism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Renton, Dave, 2004. The prison of ideas. In: Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds, Fascism:
the nature of fascism. London: Routledge.
Reynolds, Bruce, ed., 2004. Japan in the fascist era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shigemoto, Tokoro, 1979. Die Beziehungen zwischen Terrorismus und Nichirenismus – Kita Ikki,
Ōkawa Shūmei, Inoue Nisshō. In: Peter Fischer, ed., Buddhismus und nationalismus in modernen
Japan. Bochum: Studienverlag Brockmeyer, 96–97. Original, 1972–1973. Tero to nichiren-
shugi no kankei: Kita Ikki, Ōkawa Shūmei, Inoue Nisshō’. In: Tamura Yoshirō and Miyazaki
Eishū, eds, Kōza Nichiren, Vol. 4. Tokyo: Shunjūsha.
Shillony, Ben Ami, 1973. Revolt in Japan: the Young Officers and the February 26, 1936 Incident.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Skya, Walter A., 2009. Japan’s holy war: the ideology of radical Shintō nationalism. Durham, NC, and
London: Duke University Press.
Sternhell, Ze’ev, 1986. Neither right nor left: fascist ideology in France. Trans. David Maisel. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Szpilman, Christopher W.A., 2002. Kita Ikki and the politics of coercion. Modern Asian Studies, 36,
467–490.
Takeyama, Morio, 2005. Kita Ikki no kenkyū. Tokyo: Chomei Kankōkai, Rekishigaku Shosō.
Tanaka, Sōgorō, 1959. Kita Ikki: Nihonteki fashizumu no shōchō. Tokyo: San’ichi Shobō.
Tankha, Brij, 2006. Kita Ikki and the making of modern Japan: a vision of empire. Kent: Global
Oriental.
Tansman, Alan, ed., 2009. The culture of Japanese fascism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Danny Orbach 361
Trotsky, Leon, 2005. Literature and revolution. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Tucker, Robert, ed., 1972. The Marx-Engels reader. New York: Norton.
Walicki, Andrzej, 1995. Marxism and the leap to the kingdom of freedom. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Walls, Jerry L., ed., 2008. The Oxford handbook of eschatology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Webb, Darren, 2000. Marx, Marxism and utopia. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Werblowsky, Zvi, 1987. Eschatology. In: Mircea Eliade, ed., Encyclopedia of religion, Vol. 5. New
York: Macmillan, 148–151.
Wilson, George, 1969. Radical nationalist in Japan: Kita Ikki 1883–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Danny Orbach is a PhD candidate in the History Department at Harvard University. His research
covers the history of disobedience, discontent, and military resistance in Japan and China, the
intellectual history of Japanese pre-war nationalist radicals, the German resistance to Hitler, the
anatomy of atrocities and decision-making under ambiguous commands in wartime, and other ques-
tions related to the military history of the twentieth century. He can be contacted at: dannyorbach@
gmail.com

A Japanese Prophet Eschatology and Epist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Japanese Prophet Eschatology and Epist

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Japanese Prophet Eschatology and Epist

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Danny Orbach]

On: 24 August 2013, At: 04:33

A Japanese prophet: eschatology and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09555803.2011.597511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Keywords: Kita Ikki, eschatology, epistemology, Marxism, Nichiren

Theistic and atheistic eschatology

Marxism as an atheistic eschatology

Nichiren Buddhism: a relative eschatology?

Eschatology in the writings of Kita Ikki

Unofficial history of the Chinese revolution (1916)

gressive policy, especially after the Twenty-One Demands presented to China by

This Gnostic epistemology is intimately bound up with violence. If the knowl-

General principles for the reorganization of Japan (1919)

The great empire of Japan is at a national turning point as it confronts inter-

suffrage. However, the elections will be meaningless, insofar as the parliament

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.