CHAPTER III

The City and the Country

In Chapter II we learned that as long as the cities continue to

exist, urban pollution -- which is the product of the cities'

activities -- is unavoidable. We also learned that urban

pollution is at the same time the pollution of the Earth, and

that, other than the cities, there can be no other destroyer and

contaminator of the Earth.

In only a brief, cursory inspection we saw that there are far

more deadly, serious kinds of pollution than we can count on two

hands, and that the city is the sole perpetrator of these

pollution crimes, and the source of all the evils that threaten

humanity and the Earth.

The Entire Japanese Archipelago Has Been Urbanized

However, the cunning and arrogant city has shifted the

responsibility for the destruction of the Earth -- a

responsibility that is clearly its own -- to others, insisting

that the pollution is the product of the science civilization or

that it is brought about by the industrial state. And it goes

without saying that the country is included within that civilized

state.

In the country as well as in the city they drive cars, burn

propane gas, use electricity, smoke cigarettes, waste paper,

spread agricultural chemicals, and drain detergent into the

rivers and lakes; as long as the country belongs to the civilized

state, it cannot escape the fact that it is an accomplice. Thus

saying, the city attempts to shift part of the blame for

pollution onto the country. And what is more, the city also tries

to justify its own pollution as an unavoidable phenomenon of a

modern state.

But sorry to say, this is not at all consistent with reality.

The "country" that the city speaks of -- as if it had made some

great and wonderful discovery -- is not the real country at all,

but a fake, a red herring meant to keep us from seeing the

truth. The real country is what is left after we have removed all

urban influence. It is, in other words, that which can still

exist after the cities have disappeared from the Earth.

The country that the city speaks of is a fake country that is

under the influence of the city. When country people (actually

half-urbanized people) ride in cars, drive tractors, watch

television, smoke cigarettes, eat processed foods, burn

petroleum, use electric lights, and read the newspaper, they are

living a life that would be impossible without the city; this is

therefore what we should probably call an "urbanized country." If

we go a little bit further we could say that such a place does

not even deserve the name "country" for it is none other than the

city itself.

Let us take a look at a typical farm family. The son is a white

collar worker, and so of course belongs to the city. The head of

the household is a part-time farmer who farms on Sunday, and

belongs to the city Monday through Saturday. Even on Sunday when

he does his farm work, he belongs to the city if he benefits

from petroleum and agricultural chemicals. If, after he comes

home from the fields, he drinks beer and watches television, he

belongs to the city. In this way we can see that, in the entire

country of Japan there is not a single place that has not been

urbanized, not a single place that deserves to be called

"country." Yea, it is not going too far to say that the chilling

breath of this devil the city can be felt now in the remotest

corners of the villages, and that the country has been completely

occupied by the city, or shall we say, the commercialism of the

city.

But this is reality, says the city. We must recognize reality as

it is. We must respect reality.

The Real, Invisible Country

However, when we take a close look we see that though they chant

Reality! Reality! we can at any time invert this reality, and

having done so we can see that what has been inverted is just as

much "reality" as that which came before. There is no mistaking

the fact that the country before urbanization was reality, and

that the country after urbanization has become the kind of

reality we now have. It is therefore assured that after inverting

the present reality (that is, after eradicating the cities and

doing away with their influence) the real country that remains

will immediately become reality.

And so, rather than saying "The reality is that the country no

longer exists," it is more accurate to say "If we remove the

presently existing 'urbanized country,' that which remains is in

reality the country itself."

I will say it once more: The real country is what remains after

we get rid of the cities.

If propane gas stops arriving from the city, then we will burn

firewood; if matches to light our firewood stop coming from the

city, then we will warm ourselves by burrowing under piles of

straw, and eat uncooked brown rice and raw potatoes instead of

cooked food; if the city stops sending shrimp taken from far out

at sea, we will give up eating shrimp and catch and eat locusts

and digger wasps; if salt no longer comes from the city we will

consider it an unexpected blessing since it is only human beings

who ruin their health by eating too much salt (we never hear of

wild animals ingesting too much salt and damaging their health);

if shoes stop coming from the city we will make sandals out of

straw; if aluminum sashes and bricks stop coming from the city we

can build sunken huts with logs and straw; if there is no

electricity we will go to bed at sundown and rise with the sun to

work in the fields. This is the country. This real country at

present no longer exists (except in certain "uncivilized" places

in the world), but if we get rid of the cities everyone will find

themselves plunged immediately into this kind of country life,

and that will instantly become "reality." And is there in this

real country any place where pollution can be produced?

The Fate of the Wealth- and Prosperity-Seeking Cities

The city and the country -- this is none other than the contrast

between extravagance (wealth) and austerity (indigence).

China, which aims to modernize itself, has begun saying that

"Being wealthy is the Right Way" (essay in the People's Daily),

and has found it necessary to discard the immortal virtue, alive

in China since long ago, that "Wealth is evil, indigence is

honorable." That such a thing has come to pass is proof that

China could not overcome the lure of extravagance.

The present urbanization of the developing countries (including

that behemoth, China) is proceeding relentlessly as they seek

"wealth," "modernization," and "extravagance." In the near

future, it is said, Mexico city will become a city of 20

million, outstripping New York (UN population survey). When in

this way the developing countries achieve the same level of

modernization as the developed countries, it will be time for

humanity to pay the fiddler. If, for example, 90 percent of

China's one billion people, in their quest for ease and gluttony

(i.e., modernization, wealth, and prosperity), come to live in

the cities, they will demand an incredible amount of resources,

and create an equally incredible amount of poisons. The reason

the developed nations achieved modernization is that they were

able to rob the developing nations of all manner of materials,

and discard the leftover garbage in every place imaginable. If

urbanization spreads to every corner of the globe there will no

longer be anyone to rip off, and no place to stash the trash.

Needless to say, the developed countries will not stand for "the

slide back into poverty," nor the developing nations for

"eternal poverty." So of course we find everyone insisting that

they won't listen to anything like "Let's now wear straw sandals

instead of shoes," or "Let's continue to wear straw sandals."

They all believe that indigence (austerity) is an evil, but it is

nothing compared with the much greater evil that we shall perish

from the Earth.

Listen! Steamed dumplings will of course fill your empty

stomach, and you therefore consider them beneficial. However,

should you eat too many you'll get sick, and those dumplings that

you considered "beneficial" will suddenly become "harmful."

Changing the planet into fields and gardens may be all right,

but changing it into cities is not. This is because the city

depends upon urbanized land for it survival (oxygen and food),

and cannot continue to exist even one day without it. But the

country, even if it does not depend upon the city, can always

continue to live as long as it depends upon nature

(self-sufficiency and austerity). In spite of this, the country

suffers losses day by day, and the cities continue to expand.

[19] Has humanity finally been marked for ruin?

Supplementary Remarks on the Distinction Between the City and the

Country

If there is no money the city cannot survive, but even if there

is no money, the country will continue to exist. Unless Nature

itself disappears, the country will not disappear.

It is money that supports the city (allows the city to control

and exploit the country); money maintains the functions of the

city, and allows it to continue its activities. If the use of

money were to be outlawed the city would immediately find itself

unable to maintain its functions, and its activities would

cease. This is not an empty argument, for in Cambodia the Pol Pot

regime demonstrated that it can be done. The use of money was

prohibited, and the people were forced to conduct business by

barter. Immediately the city people went from farming village to

farming village in search of food, and in no time at all the

capital city of Phnom Penh was reduced to an empty shell. This

was a great experiment in which we saw that , without dropping

even one bomb, and by merely banishing currency, it is possible

to eliminate the cities in a single stroke. [20]

Money is used in the country because of the influence of the

city (the damaging influence of urban commercialism). Even if we

have no money, things will be peaceful. But perhaps it would be

better to express it this way: If we have no money things will be

far more peaceful than if we do. Money is making a mess of the

country, and it allows the city to rob the country of its food.

Long ago our ancestors lived outside the bounds of the money

economy, and so as long as they had salt, there was no need to

buy anything. [21] "Farmer" means a person who does a hundred

different kinds of work, [22] and originally the farmers did

everything for themselves, supplying their own food, clothing,

and shelter. They wove cloth, and they made sandals. They dug

wells, and they thatched roofs. They made ropes, and they

gathered firewood. Not only that, almost all the materials they

used were recyclable products of the fields and forests (I will

later discuss the necessity for the tools -- hatchets, sickles,

and saws -- they used to cut and assemble these materials).

"As long as they have salt..." I wrote, but even if they do not

have salt the farmers can somehow get along. Wild animals such as

squirrels, raccoons, and monkeys do not ingest so much salt, but

they maintain themselves in perfect health. It is only human

beings who eat too much, thereby suffering from hardening of the

arteries and high blood pressure. There is plenty of salt

contained in natural foods; Nature, I expect, made human beings

the same way it made squirrels and monkeys.

* * *

Since the city depends mainly for its existence upon nonrenewable

underground resources, its functions will of course be paralyzed,

and its activities will come to a halt, when the resources run

out. The cities, therefore, will perish first with the

discontinuance of the money economy, and second with shortage of

natural resources. The country can always get along without such

underground resources, just as wild animals and primitive

societies do.

Next (and this is directly related to my remarks on money), the

cities will disappear with a cutoff in the supply of food. The

reason the cities will perish if there is no money is because,

first and foremost, it is money that the city uses to plunder the

country for food. As I have said time and again, the city itself

is nonproductive, and cannot supply its own food. It cannot

continue to survive without robbing (this includes imports) every

last grain of rice from the country. A cutoff in the food supply

is the best means of triggering the fall of the cities.

It is the city which, for its own benefit, and for progress and

development, continues to control and destroy the natural

environment, and it is the country that lives by being in accord

with the flow of Nature. This is the decisive difference between

the city and the country, and the all-important fork in the road

where we separate that which perishes from that which will

endure.

The flow of Nature is a cycle. The four seasons come and go,

night and day are repeated (the Earth repeats the rotation on its

axis, and its revolution around the sun). Rain falls, the water

soaks into the earth, and becomes a spring. Spring water flows

into mountain streams, then makes its way to rivers, and then

into the ocean, where it evaporates. Rising into the sky it forms

clouds, and falls once again on the Land, starting the cycle

anew. Parents give birth to children, children to grandchildren;

from seed to seed the relay of Life continues. And the remains of

all things that have died are converted into humus by the Land

(its self-purifying mechanism), where they again become the

source of nourishment for life (soil). Plants grow, animals then

consume the plants, and the cycle starts all over again.

There is no end to this repetition. We may say that this cycle is

eternity itself. [23] It is therefore not a mistake to say,

"Nature is a cycle, and that cycle is eternity."

The Cycle Is the True Substance of the Country and Agriculture

Furthermore, in this cycle, i.e., repetition, there is no

"progress." From time immemorial the Earth has continued its

rotation and revolution. In the center of the solar system the

sun has continued to blaze. For tens of millions, hundreds of

millions of years, there has been not the slightest development

or improvement. In Nature there is no "progress." The biological

idea of evolution is adaptation to the environment, and is

different from progress. For example, the functioning of human

brains and hands has advanced, whereas the sensitivity of our

ears, eyes, and noses has regressed. These changes are the

results of the adaptation of intelligence and nerves to the

environment, i.e., external stimuli. For the same reason, the

necks of giraffes and the ears of rabbits became long. If

evolution is the same as progress, then can we also say that it

was progress when the dinosaurs became too big?

Well then, the country (agriculture) must be in accordance with

the eternal cycle and progress-less repetition of Nature. Last

year I planted seeds in the spring, watched them grow in the

summer, and harvested my crops in the fall. This year I will do

the same. And next year I will no doubt do it again. It only

stands to reason that if the cycle of Nature never changes, a

kind of agriculture that is closely joined to the cycle is also

eternally unchanging (needless to say, I speak here of true

country agriculture, not of modern agriculture). It is a simple

and boring repetition, but this is what makes agriculture what it

is. The essence and true characteristic of agriculture must be

this simple, boring repetition.

In the modern city, which holds industry supreme, there is no

such repetition. Yea, it is the very essence of the city that it

cannot have repetition. Even if, after the limited resources have

all been dug out of the ground, the city tries to repeat

something, it cannot because there is nothing left. Such

ineffective one-way movement means stagnation, and stagnation

means an irrevocable loss. The more the city becomes aware of the

inevitable future awaiting it after the depletion of its

resources, the more it tortures itself with worry. The cities

then fight among themselves, each trying to grab more resources

than the others, thus hastening their own demise by frantic

squandering. Momentary (as opposed to cyclical and eternal)

prosperity is the fruitless blossom that blooms upon buried

resources. To the modern industries (i.e., the city), repetition

is a fatal blow. The city has a short life, and therefore no time

for leisurely repetition. The categorical commands given to the

city are Progress, Development, and Prosperity.

In the country it is possible to eat rice even if we produce it

just as we did one hundred years ago, but in the city you'll not

find anyone who is able to watch the same television they

watched ten years ago. The city must have even one step forward,

even one millimeter's change. The same can be said for people who

make their living by getting the attention of the world with

literature and painting, for they are always thrashing about

wildly, trying to find a new style, or trying to breathe newness

into things. This quest for novelty ultimately leads to poetry

and prose and pictures that we find are impossible to understand.

Nikita Khrushchev termed this "a pig's tail" thereby earning the

reprobation of the literati, but I think he was correct and

justified in saying so. Ah, the idiocy of those who believe they

are the cultured just because they follow what is new or strange.

So in this way people put all their energies into this mad rush

forward, ever forward, while single-mindedly screeching about

such things as Creativity, Challenge, Freedom, Individuality, and

Progress. If they just sit around they'll be left behind, and

being left behind is serious business (this is the urban

competition mentality).

This stern competition mentality has started the big race to

ruin, and continues its fearsome advance with the entire society

in tow (an effect produced in combination with the Pursuit of

Profit).

* * *

And now a final word to modern agriculture --

Nature has repeated the same cycle over and over again for

billions of years. If agriculture, which is in an inextricably

close relationship with this cycle, shows unusual progress and

development (by accepting the intervention of the secondary and

tertiary industries) in spite of this relationship with the

natural cycle, then it is not at all surprising that distortion

will arise. By distortion I mean the contamination of the land

(our food), the loss of topsoil, the accumulation of salts in the

soil, and the loss of humus.

If we assume that progress in agriculture has made our lives

more affluent, then we must pay a terrible price for that

affluence. In order to live an extravagant "life," we must give

up our survival.

CHAPTER III NOTES

19

By invading the country and urbanizing it, the city is, more

than anything else, destroying the very source of its life.

20

Please note that I do not support any of the barbarisms

perpetrated by Pol Pot.

21

Since in those days (the feudal age) the feudal lords seized

food directly from the farmers, there was no need to include the

farmers in the monetary economy. The farmers were dragged into

the monetary economy when the Meiji government decreed the switch

from payment in kind to cash payment.

22

A literal rendering of one of the Japanese words for "farmer."

(Translator's note).

23

It is said that even in space everything disintegrates in the

end, but if a part of the universe (for example, the Milky Way

Galaxy) disintegrates, the planets and stars turning to dust and

scattering throughout space, then this becomes interstellar

matter which floats about in space; this dust again gathers to

form stars, and a new system is born. This too is the repetitious

movement of the universe, movement which requires tens of

billions of years.

Chapter IV

The Origin of the Cities

Just as the sun exists in the heavens, the cities exist on Earth.

Just as there is water in the great oceans, there are the cities

on land. Or at least this is what most people seem to believe. If

one does not believe so, then it would probably be impossible to

blithely make one's home in the city.

But sorry to say, the city is nothing at all like the sun or the

oceans, for it has only the most tenuous, bubble-like existence.

The World before the Appearance of the City

No matter how grand an existence urbanites try to give the city,

it is unfortunately nothing more than a phantom born a mere ten

thousand years ago or less as the final bubble of human history

-- or as the explosive with which it will destroy itself. This is

just like the Japanese Army, which, though it called itself the

Imperial Army, and (believing that it had existed from the

beginning of time) boasted of its own enduring existence, was

wiped out in less than a hundred years. It would not be at all

strange if, just as the Japanese Army (I am here distinguishing

it from the Self Defense Forces) perished in only one hundred

years, the cities perish after ten thousand.

* * *

Let us take a look at the origin of the city. At the time when

human beings kept themselves alive by hunting, fishing, and

gathering, it seems that there were no cities. And there were

probably no cities even after the beginning of agriculture, when

people made farm implements, clothing, and houses while tilling

the soil. Why was it that way? It was because at that time people

gathered their own food or produced it themselves, and in this

kind of world there is no need for the cities.

In Japan this corresponds to the period of time from the latter

half of the Jomon Period to the first half of the Yayoi Period

(the first half of the Jomon Period and the time prior to that

does not concern us here). During the Jomon Period, in which the

economy was based on gathering, the resources in any one given

area were limited, so that if the population increased this

would cause a shortage. It was therefore impossible for people to

concentrate in one place; they kept moving around so that there

were always small numbers of people living scattered over the

land (just as wild animals stake out their own territory). There

was some cooperation in their life of hunting, fishing, and

gathering, but for the most part each person took part in

gathering, making religious offerings, and dividing up the food

according to the customs of the group (Yazaki Takeo, The

Developmental Process of Japanese Cities).

Under such an economic system it was impossible to store

anything for a long time, so there were no rich and no poor.

Since this was a society which had no written records, the people

had to depend upon their rich knowledge of past experience for

the methods by which they adapted to the extremities of Nature,

and this was the reason that experienced elders were respected,

and in positions of leadership as the heads of groups.

In those days each individual made all tools for gathering and

for consumption, so that there was no one who specialized in

handicraft, and thus no distinctions of social position. Even the

head of a group did not step out of his bound, for the head of a

group, while leading, did not exploit. [24]

The Yayoi culture came from the continent (China). Therefore the

transition to the metal culture was not a natural development of

the Jomon culture, but a revolutionary change that occurred

suddenly as a result of the influence of the continental culture.

The technology of wet rice agriculture also came to Japan at

this time. Rice became a staple food along with those things

obtained by hunting and fishing. It became possible for people to

live sedentary lives in the vicinity of their fields; communities

increased their supportive power, and there appeared villages of

several hundred families. People began to work together ever more

closely, and there were divisions in social functions. On the

whole, society took on a class structure that was based upon

power.

Land, which was the principal means by which each family made

its living, was not individually owned, but held in common by the

village, and so it was necessary to tightly control the use of

land and water, and the distribution of agricultural implements

and labor. The headman succeeded to this position of authority.

One can sense that the birth of the city is nigh, but in the

first part of the Yayoi Period people were still abiding by the

law of Nature, which states that one must either gather or

produce one's own food. Even the village headman still had to

grow his own rice.

The City's Origins

When did the city make its appearance in Japan? We may say that

it happened when the gods marked the human race for ruin. When a

system made up of the dominators and the dominated, the

exploiters and the exploited, became necessary, the city came

into existence as none other than the mechanism of domination and

exploitation (see note 24).

Whether it be Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, or whatever place where

ancient civilizations arose, the city did most decidedly not

arise as an instrument for the prosperity of civilization (or

culture); it was without doubt a mechanism for idleness and

gluttony set up by the dominators and their ilk, as well as those

hangers on who hoped to profit, such as merchants and craftsmen.

Urban civilization (culture) is nothing more than a means of

achieving idleness and gluttony.

In Japan the city appeared in the latter part of the Yayoi

Period. Technology (culture) developed, the scale of communities

expanded, and the social organization became complicated. As a

result the various regions took on distinctive cultures based on

their respective functions, and there appeared villages which

were groups of people specializing in the manufacture of clay,

stone, or metal implements. Groups of people whose sole

occupation was the manufacture of things -- this was without a

doubt the beginning of the city.

Just as I stated in Chapter I, the city is the base of the

secondary and tertiary industries, or the place which is home to

those employed by those industries; it is none other than the

organization of idleness and gluttony. If there are even a few

people who, finding their sole employment in the secondary and

tertiary industries, make their living at it (or if there is the

possibility of such), then we must consider this the beginning of

the city. Scholars believe that in the latter part of the Yayoi

Period there were people whose sole occupation was the

manufacture of things, and this means that the city came into

being at that time.

There is no proof that in the later Yayoi the group heads --

that is, the dominators -- grew no food but were engaged solely

in politics. But judging from the general conditions in late

Yayoi society (particularly the considerable advances in

technology, and the furthering of functional divisions in the

economy), it is possible that there were a few group heads who

filled their bellies by engaging solely in politics (in the Tomb

Period there were countless such people). It is here that I see

the origin of the city.

And if we agree with those who say that the city was created by

merchants, then, whether they dealt in necessities or luxuries,

with the appearance of even a small-scale place where the

merchants work (i.e., the market), we must again consider this

the birth of the city. In the late Yayoi there was of course

bartering, but there is no evidence that this was conducted by

those who did nothing but barter (perhaps full-time merchants did

not make their appearance until the Nara Period). In addition we

find there were Buddhist monks and Shinto priests, as well as

soldiers and bureaucrats, who are the very models of idleness and

gluttony, and they came in droves to the early cities.

From the continent came Buddhism, and from the Tomb Period to

the Nara Period, the number of monks increased steadily; it is

said that in the 32nd year of Empress Suiko's reign [623] there

were 46 temples and 1,385 monks and nuns. Public officials and

soldiers no doubt showed a similar increase. There were 12 gates

surrounding Itabuki Palace of Empress Kogyoku [reigned 642-645]

in Asuka, and there were guards posted at each one of them.

In the fifth century the Yamato state unified the land,

establishing the Jingikan and the Daijokan departments in the

central government; in the Daijokan there was a Prime Minister,

as well as others like a Minister of the Left, and a Minister of

the Right. Under them there were eight ministries, which handled

all the business of the state, and a system of officials. The

land was divided up into Kinai, and seven Regions, and the seven

Regions were further divided into over sixty locally governed

provinces. These were further divided into smaller districts and

villages. And to govern all of these the state appointed

provincial governors, district governors, village heads, and so

on.

When the capital was based in Nara there were, among those

assembled in the city, over 130 persons who were what we may call

the aristocracy, and the officials, including those down to the

lowest ranks, numbered about ten thousand (the population of Nara

at that time was 200,000). And since these officials, monks, and

priests had their attendants, assistants, concubines, servants,

errand boys, and slaves, it would seem that the greater part of

the 200,000 people living in Nara in some way or another belonged

to the temples, shrines, and the palace.

The City as a Means of Supporting Idleness and Gluttony

In this way the city came into being, underwent transformation,

and developed. To put it more simply, politics brought the city

into being as a place for domination (exploitation). Those who

wished to fill their bellies under the wing of the rulers

gathered in the same place, thus causing the growth of the city

as an organ of exploitation.

Now let us take a jump into the future.

The city as a political entity has a 5,000-year history, but it

is said that the industrial city has at best a 200-year history.

According to Toshi Mondai no Kiso Chishiki ["Basic Knowledge of

Urban Problems"], "Ancient cities were by and large organs of

exploitation built upon a ruler, the priesthood, and the

military, but with the advancement of industrialization,

exchange and division of labor became the principal means of

control in the social organization, and when that happened the

scale and form of the city changed fundamentally. [25] These

phenomena, known as industrialization, and urbanization in the

age of industrialization, transcend the differences between

capitalist and socialist states, as well as the differences

between developed and undeveloped nations. [26] These are, we may

say, phenomena which represent a change common to the whole

world."

In this quote the author is describing the limitless expansion of

the modern city that I spoke of in Chapter I, "Urban Sprawl."

This is the problem that we must concern ourselves with solely;

what I wanted to get a general idea of here was whether or not it

is historical fact that the ancient city, which is the ancestor

of the modern city, came into being as a system (even on a small

scale) made up of the dominators and the dominated, and the

exploiters and the exploited, and if it arose in order to

establish a World of Laws [27] (a society based upon laws devised

by human beings) for idleness and gluttony. And I also wanted to

know if the city, which now stands before us like the Rock of

Gibraltar, was really born long ago as humanity's golden banner,

and if, in a Natural World (a world governed by the laws of

Nature), it is a necessity.

I wonder if it was really the wish of Nature that the city come

into being?

By looking into the past we have been able to get an idea,

however vague, of the process by which the city came into being,

and just as we thought, it came into being at the hands of master

politicos and men of the cloth as a means of abandoning

agricultural labor, skillfully plundering the fruits of the

farmers' labor, and achieving idleness and gluttony. To put it

even more tersely, the city came into being the moment such

activities began. It is virtually impossible for the city to come

into being any other way. According to the previous quote, the

ancient city was an organ of exploitation, and this is the

essence of the modern city as well. The only difference is that

the modern city has made it possible to plunder more skillfully,

in a more complex manner, and in greater amounts. To put it

another way, it was not the desire of the farmers (the country,

that is, the Natural World) that the city came into being. It is

true that many farmers helped to build the palaces, but this was

corvee labor exacted at the request (or rather the command) of

the city. I am quite sure that an examination of history will

show that the farmers did not willingly have anything to do with

the establishment of the city. The city, in other words, was

brought into existence by the urban ego itself, and not at the

request of the Natural World or the country; it was not born as

the golden banner under which all are to gather naturally.

The city is therefore a foreign body borne by the World of Laws;

its existence is merely temporary, and we would be better off

without it.

The city: Is it not the crystallization of human greed and

wickedness? (Convenience and extravagance and ease. Trinkets and

gewgaws and amusement. Progress and change and expansion.

Plundering and destruction and contamination...)

Therefore we should not feel a sense of loss at the

disappearance of the city. It will, in the near future, perish

anyway because of dwindling natural resources and nuclear war. So

we must realize that it would not be such a terrible thing to get

rid of the cities.

Supplementary Remarks

In just the last 5,000 years human beings have achieved rapid

progress. Even the Jomon Period was a mere 10,000 years ago. When

we consider it in the light of the millions of years since

humanity appeared, 10,000 years is only the most recent few

moments of our existence.

It is extremely unusual that we should have achieved such fatal

development in this short a time. Perhaps we should assume that

the gods have, during this short time, allowed humanity this

rapid progress. Let us note the fact that wild animals have shown

no progress in millions of years, for foxes and raccoons are

still living the same lives as foxes and raccoons. The rapid

changes, increasing complexity of social structure, and

urbanization achieved by humanity in the last 5,000 years must

seem extremely unusual when considered in the light of Nature's

timeless cycle. The city: the final, transient bubble of human

history. It would not be strange at all if the gods had chosen

the city as the means to destroy humanity.

The city is the explosive that will bring about the ruin of

humanity. If we assume that in order to cause the manufacture of

that explosive, Nature took the unusual step of allowing us a

single great leap in progress in a short period of time, then

this was either done on a whim of Nature (the gods) or a severe

test by the laws of evolution (yes, I will say evolution here).

The gods gave human beings wisdom (by means of evolution), and

that wisdom built the city. The city has visited us with a

crisis. When the laws of evolution led to wisdom, the gods

perhaps decided to use humanity in an experiment to see what

would happen. The gods are no doubt grinning and watching to see

what happens to the human beings who think themselves so clever

since they have invented jet planes and computers, recombined

genes, and made nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. [28]

To the gods: You granted humanity wisdom, but I don't believe

you meant that wisdom to be used in vain for progress, expansion,

and prosperity.

To the people: How about giving up the use of this wisdom for

the attainment of convenience and development, and using it

instead now for regression and austerity? And how about, if not

eradicating the cities, at least resolving to shrink the cities?

Let us get rid of nuclear weapons. And while we're at it, let's

tear down the nuclear reactors. Let's remove escalators and

automatic doors. Let's drastically reduce the numbers of jets and

automobiles. Let's give up traveling abroad (and that goes for

trips within the country as well -- being one with the land also

means that we remain stationary). Let's cancel the construction

of airports. Stop using moving walkways and walk with your legs

instead. Stop using pulp to make idiotic comic books, handbills,

and wrapping paper. Let's stop the manufacture of cigarettes,

detergents, and food additives. Let's stop taking so much

medicine. Reduce further the amounts of agricultural chemicals

and chemical fertilizers. Let's stop building so many roads.

Let's leave the seashore in its natural state. In order to shrink

the cities let's send the extra labor to the farms. Let's promote

the redistribution and further division of land. Let's all work

hard for the production of food that isn't poisoned. Weed the

fields and gardens by hand, and return compost to the soil.

There is no limit to that which we must do for scaling down,

regression, and austerity. It is for these things that humanity

must use the gift of the gods (wisdom) to its fullest extent.

People! (Assuming that the gods are even a little bit good),

they know that wisdom is a double edged sword, and they are

testing us to see how we will use it.

CHAPTER IV NOTES

24

Domination and exploitation are actually two sides of the same

coin. But if we must make a distinction, then domination is a

means of exploitation. It also follows that the city does not

come into being by means of domination without exploitation.

25

The scale and form of the modern city is basically different

from that of the ancient city, but in essence they are basically

the same. We should note that both the ancient and the modern

city are organizations for plunder and domination; the modern

city, by means of industrialization and technological innovation,

has grown to huge proportions.

26

In this instance, instead of saying that it transcends the

differences between developed and non-developed countries, we

should say that urbanization itself constitutes the efforts of

the non-developed countries to overtake the developed countries

by progress and development (or by means of living beyond their

means).

27

"World of Laws" and "Natural World" are terms from Ando Shoeki.

(Translator's note)

28

Truth is absolute, but good is relative. Since the gods are

absolute they are truth, but they cannot be good. To the farmers

the rice weevil is an evil, but to the manufacturers of

agricultural chemicals, it is a good. And to the gods the rice

weevil is, just like the farmers and manufacturers of

agricultural chemicals, merely another form of life.

It is nothing more than the arbitrary decision and wishful

thinking of human beings to believe that the gods are on the side

of good. This is where we find the fundamental error of religion.

CHAPTER V

Down with the Cities!

"Down with the cities!" means that the people of the cities will

survive, and "Prosperity for the cities!" means that the people

of the cities will perish.

If We Do Not Halt Urbanization, There Is No Future for Humanity

or the Earth

There is no problem with turning the entire planet into country,

but we must not turn it all into cities. If the entire planet is

country then, even though we cannot hope for an extravagant and

convenient life, the survival of humanity (as well as the lives

of all other living things) is completely assured. However, if

the entire planet is urbanized, then we cannot hope for our own

survival or that of any other living thing. This is because it is

impossible for the city to survive even for a day unless it

depends upon the country.

Anyone should be able to understand this much. Unless one has

gone completely bananas, it should be impossible to believe that

the city can keep itself alive. Yet in spite of this fact, every

day sees the loss of the country, and the expansion of the

cities. Just look at the donut phenomenon (the building of more

apartment complexes) occurring around the big cities. Just look

at the plastering of everything with concrete and the leisure

facilities along train lines and roads. Just look at how the

polluting industries are evacuating to the country. Just look at

the rise in tourism all over the country (tourist facilities

represent urbanization: cable cars, scenic roads, parking lots,

rest facilities, hotels, stores). And look also at the centers of

towns and villages that are now halfway between the city and the

country.

The cities continue their amoebae-like expansion. This limitless

prosperity of the cities means the decline and fall of the

country, which is the city's life line, and that means the

strangling of the city's prosperity, and the end of life for the

city.

If at this time people do not find the courage to curb

urbanization and begin the return of the city to the country, we

will have eternal regrets. Time has all but run out, and it may

already be too late. Still, we must do what can be done to

exercise the little remaining hope for humankind and the Earth.

We must get rid of the cities.

In Saving the City We Will Lose Everything

No matter what counterargument, no matter what reason there could

be, we cannot expect to save ourselves while preserving the city.

If we exterminate ourselves we will lose everything. [29] What

could be more important to us than our own survival?

Freedom? Will we still have to defend it even after we are gone?

Progress? Must we continue with it even if it means

self-destruction?

Scholarship? Must we still pursue it even if it drives us to

catastrophe?

Culture? Must we maintain it even if it brings about a crisis?

All these great and grand things will be worth nothing after we

are gone. It is the same for the prosperity of the nation-state,

the elevation of national prestige, the flourishing of a people,

and for convenience, extravagance, and ease, as well as

traditions and customs. Even while humanity is still around they

are not worth a pig's tail (this is because they come about by

oppressing and exploiting the country, and by destroying and

contaminating the environment, or they are the means whereby such

things are accomplished). How can there be a reason for

preserving such things when it means our own ruin?

ANDO SHOEKI:

A Great Sage Who Taught Us to Eradicate the Cities

"Scholarship and learning steal the way of tilling and gain the

respect of the people by means of idleness and gluttony; since

they are created by means of private law they are plots to steal

the Way. Therefore the more one engages in learning, the more one

glorifies the stealing of the Way. Learning is that which

therefore conceals this theft... Learning is scheming words meant

to deceive the people and eat gluttonously, and is a great fault.

Therefore the idleness and gluttony of the sages and Buddhas is a

stinking and filthy evil. Learning is a means of hiding this

stench and filth." (This quote and the following are taken from

The Struggle of Ando Shoeki by Terao Goro.) Ando Shoeki lived

during the Genroku Period (1703-1762), and was a doctor in

northern Honshu. A great pioneer sage who took a path taken by no

one before him, he is the only revolutionary thinker which Japan

can boast of to the world. [30]

Learning is not the Way of Heaven, but a means of achieving

idleness and gluttony which human beings created with private law

-- this is the truth which Shoeki expounded. We must not, I

should think, preserve the cities for the sake of that which

"conceals theft," thereby driving humanity to catastrophe.

"The sages of all the ages, the Buddhas, the bodhisattvas, the

arhat, Zhuangzi, Laozi, physicians, those who created the laws of

the gods, all scholars, ascetic practitioners, priests and monks

-- they are all the idle and gluttonous, the dregs of society who

steal the Way. Therefore all laws, the preaching of the Dharma,

and storytelling are all ways of justifying theft, and nothing

more. Their books, which number in the millions, all record

justifications for theft; the more wise their aphorisms, and the

more clever their turn of phrase, the more they justify theft,

and the more we must deplore them... They steal the Way,

establish their private laws, and live lives of idleness and

gluttony while lecturing on their various theories... They

deceive the people with their many theories in order to eat

gluttonously... Note well what they are doing...! We should

behead them."

And this is the reason why it has always been the object of

education to teach the techniques of idleness and gluttony. At

present, moreover, education is aiming for more than that. It is

no overstatement to say that, either directly or indirectly, all

education exists to bring upon us the catastrophic ruin in which

progress ends. If we intend to keep this from happening, we must

not preserve the cities.

"The way of agriculture... is the way found naturally in all

people; so we naturally till the soil, and naturally weave

clothes, that is, we produce our own food, and we weave our own

clothes; this comes before all other teachings."

You in the cities! We do not need all your extra baggage. The

way of direct cultivation [31] depends only upon the blessings of

Nature; it is the Way of Heaven in which we live by flowing with

Nature.

"When we carry on tilling and weaving by being in accordance

with the four seasons, with Nature, and with the advance and

retreat in the motions of the essences, we are living with the

Way of Heaven, and there will be, therefore, no irregularities in

the agricultural activities of human beings."

Nature is a cycle, and this cycle is eternity; in this

repetition there is no progress. Shoeki is saying that there must

be no progress or change in the agriculture which is carried on

in accordance with the flow of Nature (the cycle). Shoeki saw

from the beginning that progress in agriculture spurs on the

development of the secondary and tertiary industries, that is,

the city, thereby abetting the city's evils, which would in the

end wipe out humanity. It is idiocy to stubbornly defend that

which invites ruin, and that which invites ruin is the progress

of the city.

Business and Money are the Prime Evils

"Merchants do not till the soil; business in its profit-seeking

is the root of all evil.

"Merchants are gangsters who buy and sell... They come up with

schemes for increasing their profits, they curry favor with

rulers, deceive the scholars, farmers, and artisans, and compete

with each other in their profit-seeking... They are the men of

monstrous profits and harmful greed. They wish to make their way

through the world without tiring themselves with labor; they

curry favor with those both above and below themselves with

artifice, a servile countenance, flattery, and lies; they deceive

their own fathers, sons, and brothers... Immoral in the extreme,

even in their dreams they do not know of the natural way of human

beings.

"Money is the great originator of all desire and all evil. Since

the appearance of money we have lived in a world of darkness,

confused desires, and rampant evils."

Is it not exactly the same in the present day? Money and

Business -- they have always been the symbols of the city.

"And the master artisans, the makers of vessels, the weavers --

the sage uses them to build towers, fancy houses, and beautiful

chambers, or for military purposes. And the artisans curry favor

with those of all classes by means of artful language; seduced by

the lust for more commissions, they hope for the occurrence of

disasters."

In the present age we see parallels in the manufacture of such

needless, and often harmful, things like trinkets and gewgaws,

cars, cameras, televisions, jets, and computers, which only waste

resources and spew forth pollution, and in the fact that the

manufacturers of weapons and explosives hope that there will be a

war, that pharmaceutical companies hope there will be lots of

sick people, that manufacturers of agricultural chemicals hope

there will be more rice weevils, and that construction companies

hope there will be more natural disasters.

"Songs, dancing, chanting, teas ceremonies, go, backgammon,

gambling, drinking and carousing, the koto, the biwa, the

samisen, all arts, drama, plays... are the evil accomplices of

confusion and disorder; they are all worthless amusements of the

idle and gluttonous, and the businesses of pleasure; they are the

frivolity which destroys oneself and one's family."

Shoeki is saying that games and the arts are merely means for

achieving idleness and gluttony. Festivals! Amusement! Leisure!

say our modern tertiary industries (the city), investing great

amounts of resources, time, and money in their wild abandon to

idiotic entertainment and events. Shoeki's statement was a severe

criticism of just such things.

The Idle and Gluttonous Dominators "Should Simply be Put to

Death"

It is with this that Shoeki then concentrates his stinging attack

upon those in command of the secondary and tertiary industries

(the city, i.e., an assembly of the idle), their thieves' bosses,

the sages and clergymen (dominators), who are the very

incarnation of plunder.

"Those who eat gluttonously without tilling the soil are the

great criminals who steal the True Way of Heaven and Earth...

Though they be sages and men of the cloth, scholars, or great

wise men, they are still robbers.

"Sage is another name for criminal.

"The Confucian Gentlemen are the leaders of the highway robbers.

"Sage Emperor is another name for robber.

"Know ye that those of later ages will call them horse manure,

but they will not call them the scholars and the clergy. This is

because horse manure has more value." ("Scholars and the clergy"

here refers to the dominators and their ilk -- all harm and no

good.)

It would not do to get rid of these worthless and harmful

robbers and criminals (the leaders of the idle and gluttonous)

with such half-baked methods as trying to educate them. It is

impossible to change these inveterate robbers by talking with

them, by persuading them, or by educating them. Shoeki here makes

a timeless statement:

"They should simply be put to death" -- there is nothing to do

but to overthrow them. This is nothing other than a call to an

heroic, unparalleled revolution.

Of Ando Shoeki Terao Goro says, "Shoeki is worthy of being

called the Marx of the Genroku Period," but I think that Shoeki's

theory is backed by thorough revolutionary thought and a

penetrating view of society that far exceeds that of Marx, and is

more highly developed. Shoeki was a more radical revolutionary

thinker.

* * *

Whereas Marx sought the source of class confrontation in the

bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Ando Shoeki found it in those

who practice direct cultivation on the one hand, and the idle and

gluttonous on the other.

The factory workers, distributors, and buyers and sellers who

were, to Marx, "our camp," were not so to Shoeki, who thought

that they too belonged to the idle and gluttonous classes, and

that if we do not dismantle such a system, we will not be able to

realize a true "communistic society" (Natural World).

The Overthrow of the Urbanizing Mechanism Is Essential to a True

Revolution

Verily it was the dominators (feudal lords) and farm operators

who were the medium of plunder by which were fed the huge

secondary and tertiary industrial population -- the city -- which

loomed behind them. (The scholars, clergy, and officials were

subjectively the chief instigators of plunder, but objectively

they were merely the medium of plunder.) Shoeki insisted that,

before anything else, we must close the portal, we must block the

doorway of plunder.

These ideas are quite different from the theories of Marx, who

considered the medium of plunder (the bourgeoisie) to be the

ultimate enemy while believing that the great hordes of the idle

and gluttonous slithering in the shadow of the bourgeoisie were

the allies of the revolution. Shoeki was truly the first to

insist upon the eradication of the cities.

In Marxist revolution theory, there is a surprising -- and

actually quite fatal -- error in that it does not call for the

dismantling of the city, that is, the liquidation of the idle and

gluttonous. Without the overthrow of the urbanizing mechanism in

human society -- a mechanism which cannot but engender the

formation of the idle and gluttonous hordes -- we cannot achieve

true revolution.

So just take a look, please, at where the spreading world

socialist revolution is leading (even if it is but a precursor of

the communist revolution): power, oppression, progress,

expansion, modernization, urbanization, industrialization,

militarization, destruction, contamination, prodigality, and

corruption.

A Natural World in which All Till the Soil Directly, and There

Are No Groups of Idlers

The "natural world" that Shoeki imagined had no exploitation or

oppression whatsoever; its aim was a self-governing commune with

common ownership, labor by all, and equality. It was a primitive

communist society which could not be realized without, first of

all, the overthrow of the bloodsucking ruling class, and then

that of the non-tilling idlers (those who contaminate and

destroy). It was a society of contraction, regression, austerity,

and one in which all practiced direct cultivation.

If one leaves the great hordes of the idle, plundering, and

gluttonous just as they are, and then tries to achieve the

transition to communistic society (of course, this assumes the

abolition of capitalist society), can we really expect the

establishment of a utopia in which there are neither the

exploiters nor the exploited?

Sorry to say, agriculture has always had a relationship of

confrontation with business and the manufacturing industries, as

well as with the tertiary industries. The famous Meiji-era

Marxist, Dr. Kawakami Hajime, lamented, saying, "If agriculture

declines, how can business and industry prosper?" But in his book

Respect for Japanese Agriculture he wrote, "The development of a

healthy national economy depends upon the balanced prosperity of

agriculture, industry, and business." Ever true to Marxism, he

did not at all notice the antagonism between agriculture on the

one hand, and industry and business on the other.

And so the modern socialist revolution, which does not include

the dismantling of the urbanization mechanism, is not in the

least what could be called a revolution, for it is merely a

system in which the corrupt bosses plunder the produce of the

regime in place of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, and this

holds even if they are able to make the transition to the

communist revolution, but have not dismantled the cities. In

other words, we end up with a situation in which state power, in

place of the bourgeoisie, carries out oppression and

exploitation. This is a mere passing of power from one hand to

another (I will disregard here the relative merits and demerits

of the various regimes), so that there is no real difference

between the old regime and any new one brought to power by an

election victory. Perhaps this is the reason that both the

Socialist Party and the Communist Party switched their tactics to

those of emphasis on election campaigns.

Military Power, Religion, and Money as Instruments of Domination

From long ago, force of arms and religion have been used as the

means of domination. In a state governed by laws, it looks as

though laws take the place of these, but behind the laws is the

force of arms (the military and the police), and out in plain

view is money, about which I shall have more to say later. And

the backbone of laws is religion, which includes morals, ethics,

tradition, and customs.

There is no need to say much about military power. Control and

oppression by military force, a conventional technique, is very

common, with just a few examples being the ancient attempts to

subjugate the Korean peninsula, the struggles between the Taira

and Minamoto, the Warring States, the feudalist military

government, Manchuria, the China Incident, and so on without

limit. In addition, as everyone knows, in between these big wars

and incidents the dominators were constantly making use of

military force to gain power for themselves. And the present

military, though they call themselves the Self Defense Forces,

will, when the time comes, point their guns in this direction.

I will have to say a little about religion. I speak here not

only of Buddhism, Shinto, Christianity, and the new religions,

but also of all blind faith and superstitions. There is no

telling how, from ancient times, the blind faith of loyalty

(originally Confucianism) has been an advantage to the

dominators, and a disadvantage to the dominated. Good examples of

this are the elimination of those in the way by harakiri, and the

honoring of the war dead at Yasukuni Shrine. The dominators have

always deceived us with superstitions which say that if we are

not perfectly loyal, we will be punished. And now the blind faith

in the omnipotence of science [32] is making possible the

augmentation of the city's functions, thereby inviting the growth

of the plundering classes.

The traditional religions teach us not to become attached to

material things, and as proof to that they tell us to make

offerings. Show the extent of your belief, they say, with a

widow's mite. And in this way, with each small drop adding to

their ocean of wealth, they have built not only their head

temples and headquarters, but boast of their branch temples,

missions, and other splendorous buildings, ostentatiously display

their decorations, feed their priests and officials, and scale

the heights of prosperity with only contemptuous regard for the

poverty of the people. And very important here is the fact that

the dominators, in the shadow of religion, have used these

religious teachings as tools for the placation of the people, and

through exchange have offered the riches concentrated in the

shrines and temples as the capital resource for domination. This

is without a doubt the reason that the central government has,

from the Tomb Period through the Nara and Heian Periods, helped

the religions prosper.

If We Banish Money, the Cities Will Perish

In addition to the force of arms and religion, money has been an

instrument of domination and exploitation.

Money: It would be hard to find anything else that is so

convenient, so easily used, so powerful an instrument of

domination. The arrogant belief that, as long as one has money,

one can do anything, is not mere arrogance; money is in actuality

the mechanism by which the functions and activities of the city

are supported, and the means by which people so freely manipulate

the city's functions in order to bring about prosperity. The

reason burglars and thieves (in this case I am not referring to

the dominators) always take money is because they too, as long as

they have money, can get anything they want, be it goods or

services. Big shot politicos get sweaty palms at the thought of

fat bribes because as long as they have money they can feed great

numbers of hangers-on and wield great power.

Simple logic, then (and here we at last come to the stage where

we get rid of the cities), dictates that all we have to do to get

rid of the cities is banish money.

This is not idle speculation, for the Cambodian regime of Pol

Pot actually proved it could be done (forgive me for harping on

this one example, but no other government has had the guts to do

the same thing).

Proving no exception to the rule, the growing urbanization

phenomenon in the developing countries has brought about

unfavorable trade imbalances and the devastation of the

countryside, as well as the importation of food, which engenders

even more losses of foreign currency. No matter how high the

government raises its voice and orders the citizens to till the

fields, once the people have had a taste of idleness and gluttony

they squat in the city and refuse to budge. The Pol Pot regime,

which had come to the end of its rope, prohibited the use of

money and made everyone barter. So the citizens, who could no

longer get food with money, went from one farming village to

another in search of food, and the capital of Pnom Penh

immediately became a ghost town. This was a great experiment

which proved that, without dropping a single bomb, and by merely

banishing money, the glory of the city can be wiped out in the

space of a day.

Criticism of the Productivity Remarks by Sony's Honorary Chairman

Ibuka Masaru, the honorary chairman of Sony, said, "There is a

1,500-fold difference in productivity between agriculture and

industry." (A statement made during a committee meeting on the

issue of internationalization in agriculture, and included in the

book Food, published by the Asahi Shimbun.) He also said, "Rather

than having the farmers produce crops, it would be better to hand

them money and let them be idle." And, "All agriculture should be

transferred to Southeast Asia." [33] He even declared that

"hanging on to an industry which has lost its competitiveness is

none other than a big loss to the country."

A difference of 1,500 times -- this means that agriculture has

but 1/1,500th the productive capacity of industry, and is

therefore a great loss to the country. What a jump in logic that

is. It is natural that there is a difference in the productivity

of industry, which night and day produces things in time

intervals of minutes and seconds, and agriculture, which harvests

farm products only once or twice a year. So if we proceed along

the same logical lines, it means that we must destroy all

farmland in the world and build upon it efficient factories.

So, Mr. Chairman, let us assume that the cities of Japan end as

Phnom Penh did (ultimately it will surely happen when the food

runs out). If you try to exchange 1,500 Sony transistor radios

for one bag of rice, do you think the farmers will listen? Even

if a farmer received 1,500 essentially worthless transistor

radios, he would not even have a place to put them.

Mr. Chairman. If industry has 1,500 times the productive

capacity of agriculture, then does it not make sense to say that

agricultural products should have 1,500 times the value of

industrial products? This is the reason that, if we were to

barter, you would not even be able to get one bag of rice for

1,500 Sony products. This is a good example of how the

interposition of money has evilly exploited farm produce.

There Are no Mice with the Requisite Bravery

We have seen that if we banish money, industry will perish,

commerce will languish, the services will tread water, and the

cities will die, but is there a mouse with the bravery to put a

bell around the cat's neck? Outside of Pol Pot, there is probably

not a mouse in the whole world with the bravery to try it.

As long as "the government" does not find the resolve to banish

money, it will not be possible, but if we get rid of money, the

first to be put out on a limb is none other than "the

government" itself. Is it possible that any government in the

world could find the guts to make the rope for its own hanging?

Money: The means by which domination and exploitation can be

most easily and effectively achieved. It is inconceivable that

people would abandon it, at least voluntarily. (Of course, if the

situation grows objectively worse on a global scale, money will

perforce change into worthless little pieces of paper and metal.)

Is Stopping the Food Supply Possible?

The reason that the city would perish immediately with the

banishment of money is that the city would be unable to purchase

food. (With the banishment of money the movements of raw

materials, wastes, and merchandise will slow, and the functioning

of the city will become paralyzed, but the city will not perish

immediately.) But if we carry our thinking one step further, we

see that, even if we do not get rid of money, we can get rid of

the cities by merely shutting off the food supply.

There is no doubt that, if shipments of food stopped right now,

the mountains of food in the grocery stores would not even last

two days. No matter how badly the residents of the cities want to

stay there, no matter how well they hunker down, no matter how

many new and wonderful machines they make, no matter how rare the

arts they display, no matter how far they pursue abstruse

learning, they cannot do a thing on an empty belly, so they will

all abandon the cities, crying, and go to the country in search

of food. Thus the cities will become ghost towns.

Cutting off the supply of food is, at the distribution stage,

known as shipping refusal. If the farming cooperatives would find

the bravery to do this, cutting off the food supply would not be

impossible. But sad to say, the co-op is on the side of the city;

it is the city itself. Even if the heavens and the earth reversed

themselves, it is doubtful that the co-op would ever stand with

the farmers. The co-op makes it look as though it is the ally of

the farmers, but this is a mere gesture. Anyone will tell you

that, if there were to be a rice shortage, the co-op, which is

the wicked agent for the city's plundering, would never let the

city starve, even if it had to scratch together every last grain

of the farmers' rice stocks.

So much for the co-op. There is no need to discuss the traders

and the wholesalers. Shipping refusal would, ultimately, end in

total failure.

The Mammonistic Farmers Cannot Become Revolutionaries

Would it be possible, then, for the farmers to refuse to sell?

This would not be impossible if the farmers would not fear

repression, if they would steadfastly refuse to supply the city

with food even if the military came with their guns, and there

was a little bloodshed. The city can live a bit longer by

importing food (the president of Sony can take charge when the

time comes), but that cannot be helped. How long the city can

keep itself alive depends upon the skill of the president.

The real problem, as I see it, is that among the farmers there

are quite a few mammonists who have for some time been nursed

along by the money economic system. There are without a doubt

great numbers of traitors. If there are many farmers who, taking

advantage of a food shortage, sell food for high prices in

secret deals, any efforts to stop the sale of food to the city

are bound to end in failure. The "farmer power" of those farmers

who gird their loins and go into Tokyo to demonstrate is actually

greed power. It is their greed which gives the city a place into

which it can dig its claws. The city then rips off great amounts

of food for a mere pittance (or for loans).

Ah, the pitiful farmers! This greedy egotism is the

(historically and socially inevitable) pathetic mentality that

has been deeply implanted in the farmers who for generations have

suffered from the poverty brought about by cruel plundering. Was

this the reason Marx chose the city laborers as the soldiers in

his revolution instead of the farmers?

* * *

To say "Refuse to sell food!" or "Down with the cities!" seems

extremely cruel and subversive, but it is nothing compared to the

unmitigated robbery and tyranny that the city has committed

during the last five thousand years.

It Is the Plundering and Destructive Idlers Who Are the

Subversive Elements

When we say "Down with the cities!" we do not at all mean that we

should kill all the city dwellers. We are merely saying, "Give up

your extravagance." We are saying, "Stop your insatiable

plundering." We are saying, "Dismantle that mechanism of

plunder." We are saying, "Let us create a society of austerity in

which all practice direct cultivation." [34]

Why is it cruel and seditious to say "Give up being a robber"?

Why is it wrong to say "Stop driving others into poverty so that

you can, by their sacrifices, live an extravagant life"?

Long ago the farmers, no longer able to bear the burden of harsh

exploitation, sent representatives to the feudal lords to plead

for reductions in the amount of rice they had to send as

tribute. The reply was, "You insolents! Do you not fear your

master? Such effrontery cannot be forgiven!" And they were

decapitated. This is outrageous. The insolents were the feudal

lords (idlers) who, in order to continue their own extravagance

and gluttony, cruelly robbed the farmers. And their spirit of

idleness comes all the way down to our modern city. Even now if

we were to say, "Stop plundering for your own extravagance!"

"Stop destroying for your own ease!" or "Be satisfied with a life

of austerity!" the city would surely consider us subversive

elements, and look upon us with severe disapproval. The real

subversive elements are the city dwellers themselves, who

continue their rapacious and destructive ways as if it is their

natural right, who nonchalantly continue their lives of

convenience, while contentedly patting their fat bellies.

Should We Be "Thankful" for Urban Civilization?

As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there are many

who believe that the flourishing of civilization and culture is

more important than anything else; that the city, the value of

which is absolute, is contributing 100 percent to such; and that

the city is sacred and must not be desecrated. Though I have

already said quite a bit on this subject, I would here like to go

into it in a little more detail.

For example, the believers say that the civilization of the

Shinkansen train and the jet has made considerable contributions

to politics, economics, and culture. A company of singers that

performs in Tokyo at noon can give the same performance in Osaka

in the evening. "Is this not a wonderful world we live in?" they

say. Who are they kidding? This silver-tongued, idiotic lot of

singers, these idle and gluttonous bloodsuckers, go from Tokyo to

Osaka on the Shinkansen which wastes incredible amounts of

energy, assaults our ears with noise, and runs on rails over the

concrete ties which are destroying the land. Then in Osaka they

sing the same idiotic songs. Now, tell me what I should be

thankful for. Should I be thankful for the activities of such

people who, with each passing minute, bring about the increasing

devastation of the Earth?

Politicians can take jets to other countries, thereby enabling

them to take care of important political affairs in little time,

and the believers claim that this is a blessing of our modern

urban civilization. They say that the ability of international

traders to jet to other countries and quickly conclude business

deals is due to the same. And they say that, thanks to the jet

civilization, it is possible for old and young alike to freely go

to other countries, learn more abut the world and soak up

culture.

Let us not be fooled. When politicians hurry to other countries

by jet and confer with other politicians, it is almost always to

insure the progress and prosperity of their own countries. And as

I have said before, progress and prosperity are inseparable from

environmental contamination and the destruction of the Earth.

Should we really be thankful when politicians, in order to

discuss such things, jet to other countries, destroy the ozone

layer, waste energy, produce noise pollution, and do it all with

tax money?

When international traders (the "economic animals") go to other

countries, the purpose is of course to plunder the developing

nations, or to suck up to the industrialized nations (although an

overabundance of merchandise in their warehouses is clearly the

result of squandering resources and squeezing labor to produce

more than is necessary, they believe implicitly that this state

has come about because other countries do not buy, so they try to

hard-sell more by dumping). Should we be thankful that they hurry

by jet to other countries so that they can cause trouble for the

developing countries and cause more trade friction with the

industrialized countries?

Everyone and his dog are going to foreign countries these days.

Quiz programs on television usually bait people with promises of

foreign travel. What are all these people whizzing off to other

countries for, on the jets that boast of being the worst

polluters? Is it to see the rare beauty of foreign scenery? Are

there no mountains in Japan? Is there no ocean? There is little

difference between the ocean at Boso and that in Hawaii. In the

mountains near their homes there are places they are unfamiliar

with. All those people who have no time to consider the

appearance of a single tree, to feel the pathos of a single

blade of grass -- what do they expect to experience abroad? Is it

that the scale is different? If you pine after magnificence, then

stand where you are and look up at the sun's great orb. Lift your

eyes to the night sky and gaze at the cosmos.

What? Your want to research foreign sexual customs? You

lecherous slobs! [35]

Travel abroad in the name of study and training is none other

than for the purpose of learning the techniques of idleness and

gluttony, or to make preparations for contamination and

destruction. Even in Japan there is much of this going on, but in

whatever country it is the extreme of evil. Are we supposed to be

thankful when people go abroad for sightseeing, sex, or study,

and then come back bug-eyed with amazement? Are we supposed to be

thankful that, because of their activities, the Earth is more

devastated minute by minute?

The "wonderful world we live in" is the "city." We must take

drastic measures to get rid of the city.

Even If We Do Not Eradicate the Cities, They Are Fated to Perish

But the city has underestimated the situation. "If you think it's

possible to get rid of the cities, then go ahead and try," it

says. "What can you accomplish in your frenzied condition?"

Well, this certainly is true. Once the city realizes that it is

impossible to banish currency or get the farmers and co-ops to

stop food shipments, it is natural to sit back and relax, for the

city is right.

However, let us note once more that, though we cannot get rid of

the cities by our own actions, the cities are in actuality bound

to perish (I will treat this in a later chapter). The city's

underestimation of the situation will lead to its own fall in the

near future.

The depletion of mineral resources, the drying up of the oil

fields, nuclear war, the destruction and contamination of the

environment, food shortages, economic panic, computers, robots,

overproduction, backlogged inventories, trade friction, violence

by the unemployed -- these will all lead to uninhabited cities.

But the city's swaggering, unconcerned attitude toward these

things will only bring about a crises state that much sooner. As

long as the city continues to underestimate the dangers, to waste

without a moment's afterthought, to make more nuclear weapons, to

urbanize farmland, to change the forests to desert, to

contaminate the land and the sea, to develop convenient machines,

to produce an overabundance of goods -- as long as the city

continues in this manner, how many more years can it live without

a care?

The prophet Nostradamus, who has been 99 percent accurate, says

that in July 1999 the Great King of Fear will come down from the

sky, and humanity will face annihilation. This would seem to be

right on target, since the cities are heading for destruction at

full speed, and will probably perish at that very time.

Unfortunately, this bit of prophecy cannot but hit the bull's

eye.

There Will Be No Cities in the Twenty-First Century

The cities are bound to perish, and they have not long to live.

Even if we do nothing but stand by and twiddle our thumbs, the

cities will suffer automatic annihilation.

There will be no cities in the twenty-first century. It is

nonsensical to believe that in the next century the Earth will be

covered with 20 million cities. This is almost the same as the

estimate that, should the population continue to increase at the

present rate (and assuming the absence of epidemics, war, and

starvation), population density 700 years hence will be such that

there is one person per each square foot, including the

mountains. If people estimate that in the twenty-first century 20

million cities will swell to cover the Earth, then it is for that

very reason that the cities will perish. And if they estimate

that the population density will become such that there is one

person for every square foot of land, then it is for that very

reason that humanity will perish.

There is no doubt that this will come to pass. The rails have

been laid, and the city is rolling along right on course. From

whatever angle, and with however sympathetic eyes, we look at the

city, we cannot but conclude that it is bound to perish by reason

of the urbanization phenomenon itself.

Even now, Nostradamus is surely watching from afar, boasting

over the accuracy of his prediction, and laughing at the

insatiable progress, prosperity, and obsessive delusions of us

human beings.

I will say it once more: The cities are bound to perish. Even if

I were to swing at the ground with a maul and miss, there is no

mistake in predicting so. Even if the sun rises in the west, and

even if the rivers run upstream, there is no way to stop the

annihilation of the cities. Verily, in the next century the city

must make reparations for its 5,000 years of wickedness.

The Only Way to Save Ourselves and the Earth Is to Cut Ourselves

Off from the City

But if the cities are bound to perish anyway, why not just let

things go on as they are? many will say.

The fact is, we cannot just sit around and wait for it to

happen, because it will then be too late. The cities are trying

to ruin the whole Earth in order that they themselves will

perish. We must not allow ourselves to be dragged down with them.

Though it may appear cowardly, we must cut ourselves off from the

cities before that time comes.

Cutting ourselves off from the cities will first of all help

prevent their further expansion, and begin their contraction. And

this is not impossible, for our ancestors long ago did the same

thing. Let us not allow this to be a mere dream; let us try to

use that one slim chance given humanity and the Earth.

Now is the Time to Escape from the City

I now appeal to the people in the city to give up those white

collar jobs and get out of the city.

If even one of you leaves the city and takes up farming, that

makes possible the contraction of the city by 1/9,000,000th. It

also makes possible the lessening of the city's evils by the same

1/9,000,000th.

Escape from the city is not only the victim's flight from the

city, which he feels cannot last much longer, but it is also a

withdrawal from the position of the malefactor -- those

accomplices of evil, the city dwellers who refuse to budge.

And I also want to appeal to those in the farming villages to

stop producing vast quantities of food, and to embark on

self-sufficient farming.

For every one of you that ends your dependence on the city

(actually the dependence of the city on you) and becomes an

independent farmer, we will be able to chase 1/90,000,000th of

the city's population out of the city, and reduce the city's

evils by the same amount. (At present 10 percent of the Japanese

population farms, and the other 90 percent lives in the cities.

This works out to one farmer feeding nine idlers, so for every

one farmer that stops feeding the city, we can shrink the city by

nine people.)

The city is, of course, perfectly free to feed itself with food

imports. It can import all the vegetables, fruit, meat, and eggs

that it likes. When the time comes, the president of Sony can

take charge.

Becoming an independent farmer -- I can call this the "Bagworm

Revolution."

The combined effect of leaving those white collar jobs and

becoming an independent farmer will without a doubt prevent the

expansion of the cities and begin their contraction. I am sure

that this is the one ray of light, the one hope, we have of

assuring our survival, and we must take advantage of it before

the cities see their final collapse.

CHAPTER V NOTES

29

Optimists will say, "Humanity will not necessarily perish

because of the cities. As a matter of fact, it is not impossible

that, because of the progress of science and technology, we will

perpetuate ourselves by the acceleration of prosperity." But

before coming at me with this counterargument, they must prove

the following:

->

that no matter how many resources we squander, they will never

run out.

->

that no matter how much we contaminate the atmosphere and the

oceans, it will not affect living things.

->

that the more drugs and food additives we ingest, the healthier

we will become.

->

that matter (trash) is not imperishable, that it can be

destroyed.

->

that the more land we cover with concrete, the greater our

chances of survival.

->

that nuclear weapons were made so that they would not be used

(in other words, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exceptions).

And there are still zillions more that they must prove! And what

is really important is that the opposite of each one of these

zillions is extremely easy to prove.

30

See E. Herbert Norman, Ando Shoeki and the Anatomy of Japanese

Feudalism. Reprint edition published in 1979 by University

Publications of America, Inc. (Translator's note)

31

A term of Shoeki's which means that all people grow their own

food. (Translator's note)

32

This blind faith is implanted in us, on a national, yea, an

international scale, from the time we are in elementary school,

and we have come to the point where there is no greater "faith"

than this.

To the question, "Science is the standard for everything; if we

cannot believe in science, then what must we believe in?" one

must reply, "There is only the Way of Heaven. The Way of Nature

is a cycle with neither progress nor development; wild animals

commit themselves to this cycle and live out their lives this

way. Blind faith in science is a privilege given only to human

beings, but unfortunately they will perish in the near future

because of scientific progress.

33

The land in Southeast Asian countries is the precious means of

food production to those who live there (there are also the

forests which maintain the ecosystem and convert carbon dioxide

into oxygen for us). It is preposterous to abandon the

agriculture of one's own country and invade another. Such

arrogant corporate minds crowd the cities of the entire world so

that now reckless development runs rampant in Southeast Asia,

Africa, and the Amazon basin, and desertification and devastation

of the land proceed at an astonishing pace.

It is said that "before civilization there are trees; after

civilization there is desert," and this will probably come to

pass since the land is being sacrificed for the sake of today's

prosperity, and in time we will find the survival of all things

on Earth (including ourselves) seriously threatened ("The

Twenty-First Century's Warning," special program aired on NHK,

November 8, 1984 at 8 p.m.).

34

Japan has six million hectares of arable land, and this works

out to five ares per person. One person can probably grow enough

on five ares to live. It is therefore possible for all 220

million Japanese to become direct cultivators. Let them sing

songs, draw pictures, and make trinkets and gewgaws during the

time they are not working in the fields.

35

The author is referring to the so-called "prostitution tours" in

which Japanese men allegedly travel to Southeast Asian countries

to shop for many things, including women. (Translator's note)

CHAPTER VI

Disengagement from the City

The cities will perish of their own accord, [36] but we do not

know exactly when that will happen, and we must in the meantime

work for the contraction and decline of the cities. It is

therefore necessary for us to immediately begin building a

society in which it is possible to live without the cities. We

need resolve, mental preparedness, countermeasures, and a warmup.

Helping the City Perish so that We Can Make the Escape

To build our resolve and begin our warmup we must prepare for the

collapse of the city. Without a rehearsal our resolve is a mere

fantasy, and our warmup is nothing more than flailing our arms

about without throwing the ball.

How can we, during this time when the city still stands grandly

before us, bring about conditions under which it will perish?

There is only one way, and that is to disengage ourselves from

the city. Looking for a way to avoid the evils of the city while

at the same time receiving in full the blessings of urban

civilization is like trying to get milk from a bull. There is no

difference at all between this and the Zen priest who, while

attired in a resplendent brocaded robe, preaches to people on how

to rid themselves of earthly passions. "Disengagement" from the

city is the first of the preparations we must make in order to

get ready for its collapse, and it is also a means of shrinking

the city.

So disengagement from the city comes first -- but this is easier

said than done. Once one makes the attempt, one finds that there

are countless obstacles, and that virtually all of them are

difficult to overcome since they are not of our making (for

example, a lack of courage or resolve), but are obstacles put in

our path by the city.

The Structure of the City Does Not Readily Permit "Disengagement"

For example, the city (government) commands us to pay taxes.

"Since, as a citizen of the state and of your local government,

you receive their benefits, it is only natural that you be

required to help support them," it explains. And what happens if

one replies in the following manner? "You make it look that way,

but in actuality tax money is none other than the capital for the

nourishment of state power and for your compulsory, excessive

services. With your power and services, and with the farming

villages as your springboard, you maintain the urban social

structure, develop the urban economy, spur on urban prosperity,

and protect and nurture urban civilization and culture. I do not

need the blessings of the nation-state or of the local

government, and so I'm not going to pay taxes." And with that

they come to take it from you, a classic example of power in

action. Should you remove them by force, you are arrested and

thrown in prison.

* * *

The city also orders us to pay for education (textbooks, school

supplies, transportation, uniforms, etc.). "Education is

necessary," says the city, "so that you can live as a member of

modern society." Our reply is, "Though it first appears that way,

education in actuality only teaches people how to be idle and

gluttonous. It merely teaches people that which is used for

contamination, destruction, and waste. I do not want to pay money

for education that endangers the future of humanity." The city

comes back with, "Don't you realize how helpful education is in

the formation of human character?" "Are you telling me that one

of the gifts of education is the skillful concealment of

evildoing by those in positions of power? Wild animals receive no

education, yet we see not one criminal among them." At this the

city waves tradition, custom, and the constitution in front of

us, and finds a way to force education on us.

* * *

Shrines and temples (these are also the city) try forcing us to

contribute money. "That family over there gave some tens of

thousands of yen; the family next door donated several thousand.

Please give what you can..." It is only natural, they say, that

the believers (?) bear the costs of decorating the temples and

buying new robes for the priests. "You idle and gluttonous

bloodsuckers! The insolence of you to try and clothe yourself in

warm robes and fill your bellies, without tilling the soil, by

the mere glib chanting of some sort of incantation. I won't give

you a single red cent." And at this their eyes emit fire and they

reply with a threat: "You'll pay for this! May the gods (Buddha)

punish you immediately. In the near future you will be visited by

calamity, so get ready!" And then they continue to press for

donations through the back door by sending the shrine or temple

representative who is some influential citizen of the village.

* * *

The farmers' co-op comes to ask for help in raising more capital.

"The co-op is a cooperative union which exists for the sake of

the farmers. It is natural that the members must come up with the

capital to support the co-op's activities." "The coop as a union

for the farmers exists only in charter; in actuality it is

operated solely for its own benefit. Is this not the reason the

co-op, whether it be loans or sales, constantly exploits the

farmers? It is as if the co-op has switched from 'cooperative

union' to 'corporation.' I cannot give you money for capital

which will be used for corporate profits, or to exploit the

farmers." And the reply is, "So you have no need for loans or

farm machinery or fertilizer, do you? Well then, don't come

crying to the co-op when your crops are destroyed by blight or

weevils!"

* * *

The United States tells us to stimulate domestic demand in order

to redress the trade imbalance, and the politicians join the

chorus, promoting aggressive fiscal policies (throwing wads of

money in every direction), and insisting that we must vitalize

the economy. Of course the manufacturers are delighted, and put

pressure on us to Buy! Buy! However, we have reached the

saturation point, and cannot consume any more; we have no more

time or energy to expend on consumption (our drawers are full of

clothes, our houses are full of all manner of electrical

appliances, and our bellies are ready to burst; we have to play

golf, we have to travel, we have to play pachinko and mahjong, we

have to enjoy our stereos and video recorders, we have to read

newspapers and weekly magazines -- all 24 hours of the day will

not take care of it). We don't want anything else; don't come at

us with the need to stimulate domestic demand, we say, but they

counter by asking if we are traitors who intend to stand by and

watch as our country goes down. It's all right if your belly

bursts, so eat more bread! Use a car for only one year and then

trash it and buy another! Wear clothes only once and then throw

them away! Forget and leave your camera at the station! Throw

your watches in the ocean! And so the government and corporations

imperiously demand. Let us note incidentally that Japan became a

trading country precisely because there was no hope for an

increase in domestic demand. If there is a trade imbalance

because of excess exports, they ought to address the cause. In

fine, it would help much if they would stop overproduction. It

does not make any sense to compete with other manufacturers in

overproduction, and then try to shove the products down people's

throats. Could we hope that they won't try to solve this problem

by war?

The Only Possible, Sensible Way Is the Practice of "Independent

Farming"

We have seen, therefore, that it is virtually impossible to

disengage oneself from the city completely since the city clings

to us tenaciously. It is said that when Saigyo [37] was ready to

leave on his sea voyage he kicked his own child away from the

boat -- that is, he shook off earthly passions -- and departed

resolutely. However, the city will not bow out so readily; with

the strongest manacles (and, when the need arises, with police,

courts, and the military) it tries to prevent our leaving. This

cannot be helped. If we cannot then completely rid ourselves of

the city's entanglements, then we must allow only the least

possible involvement with the city, and shake off the major

restraints it imposes on us. Let us do as the lizard does when it

flees, leaving only the tip of its tail. There is no other way to

flee from something that clings to us like our very shadow.

To be specific, the only way to accomplish this is to practice

"independent farming." Unless we do this, there is no way at all

to escape the city. For example, let us say one quits a white

collar job and takes up painting in order to support oneself.

This will not do, for unless one is recognized by the city for

one's art and is compensated for it -- that is, joins the plunder

activities of the city -- then there is no way to make a living.

Indeed, such activity is the city itself.

Independent farming, as I mentioned in the previous chapter, is

natural cycle farming, which depends upon nothing but Nature;

animal and human wastes are returned to the soil, and the produce

of the land then feeds the animals and human beings. As long as

one continues this type of farming, there is no room for the city

-- government, co-ops, manufacturers, corporations, and consumers

-- to butt in. One is self-sufficient and independent, and there

is no fear of failure whatever may come.

Reducing One's Contact with the City to the Least Possible Extent

These are the basics of readying oneself for the demise of the

city. If one does just this much, then it does not matter when

the city perishes. However, during the transition period, one

cannot escape the entanglements of the city, so while receiving

in the smallest measure the blessings of the city (that is, while

supplying the city with only the smallest amount), we ready

ourselves for the impending demise of the city, decide how to

deal with it, train ourselves for it, and continue to deepen our

relationship only with Nature. And this is also the best way to

bring about the contraction of the city.

Let us now, in light of the foregoing examples, see how one can,

while beginning the practice of independent agriculture, lessen

one's ties with the city to the maximum possible extent.

* * *

The more money one makes, the more they take in taxes. If one has

only enough income to barely get along, then under the present

tax system it is not necessary to pay very much. However, it

seems that one is still bound to pay local and prefectural taxes.

* * *

Compulsory education as required by the constitution cannot be

helped, but we should think carefully about anything more than

that. The universities, in particular, are none other than

training facilities for the Contamination and Destruction Reserve

Corps, [38] so we must regard them as the enemy and stay away.

The only education necessary to independent farmers is the

farming methods peculiar to their family and region as passed on

to them by their parents, grandparents, and village elders. The

study of anything more than that is the sham egotism of the urban

economic society, the urban competitive society, the urban

cultural society, or the urban glory society.