Japan: A Node in the Imperialist Network in Trouble

In the current phase of the general crisis of capitalism, Japan exemplifies the growing contradictions of imperialism. For decades, the Japanese bourgeoisie was bound to the military protection of North American firepower. Now, it finds itself crushed in the grip of competition between imperialist powers, where there are no “historic” alliances but only changing and brutal power relations.

The introduction of 24% customs duties on Japanese imports by the US administration (April 2, 2025) marks a significant shift in the escalation of the trade war between imperialist blocs. The target is clear. The Japanese automotive sector, which alone accounts for 28.3% of exports to the United States, is subject to tariffs of 25%, with an estimated impact of a 4.3% contraction. This measure is consistent with the laws of capitalism. In order to survive the crisis of overproduction, every power is forced to expand at the expense of others.

The Japanese bourgeoisie had exchanged its strategic subordination for commercial advantages. But imperialism knows neither gratitude nor historical memory. It only the continuous change in relations between capitals in permanent war. Financial capital immediately recognized the severity of the attack. The 3% loss on the Tokyo Stock Exchange on the day of the announcement is nothing more than a reflection of the blind and impersonal intelligence of capital.

The Japanese leadership, caught off guard by the change in American attitude, proved to be lacking in vision. The failed merger between US Steel and Japan Steel—blocked by a bipartisan front in the US Congress—should have made it clear that the “friendly” cycle in relations between the two powers had come to an end.

The new Ishiba government, a weak echo of previous cabinets, is reduced to postponing meetings and passively enduring the country’s growing isolation within the imperialist bloc. The major maneuvers of the Kishida period—the “Japan+” project, integration with QUAD, NATO’s expansion into the Indo-Pacific, the AUKUS illusion—have dissolved in the realization of Japan’s marginality in the new world order. The inability to transfer troops to Guam and the paralysis in revising the Security Treaty are just visible signs of the geopolitical decline of Japanese capital.

Behind its technological facade, the Japanese economy is undermined by irreversible imbalances. The slow erosion of the productive base, the forced transition to a service economy, and the growing dependence on tourism—an unproductive and volatile activity—reveal the impossibility for Japanese capital to reestablish a stable cycle of accumulation.

Inflation—at 4.0% in January, 3.7% in February, and 3.6% in March – is beyond the control of the Bank of Japan, which has been unable to cope with currency devaluation for three years. The “core” and “core-core” versions consistently exceed target levels. On this fragile basis, the US customs offensive exacerbates the crisis, making the systemic weakness of Japanese capitalism even more evident.

The rice crisis—a product symbolic of Japanese food sovereignty—clearly shows the anarchy of the bourgeois regime. The 70.9% increase in prices in a single month is the result of the convergence of factors typical of senescent capitalism: environmental destruction, speculation, collapse of logistics networks. The bourgeois state has totally demonstrated its ineptitude. Of the 210,000 tons declared in reserve, only 4 tons were actually released when needed. The myth of food self-sufficiency is dissolving in the need to import rice—even from South Korea, in quantities not seen since 1990—marking the definitive failure of the protected and autarkic agricultural model.

The resumption of contacts between Japan, South Korea, and China does not represent any opening for peace or cooperation between peoples. On the contrary, it is a necessary move by three national bourgeoisies forced to defend their interests against the growing aggression of US imperialism.

The trilateral meeting on March 30 in Seoul and the attempt to relaunch the RCEP agreement—the Asian alternative to the American trade sphere—are expressions of this defensive need. Cooperation in strategic sectors (semiconductors, artificial intelligence, submarine cables, digital surveillance, etc) is anything but peaceful. These are preparations for future wars, in which each bourgeoisie arms itself to defend its profits against its competitors.

The GCAP program—developed jointly with Italy and Great Britain—sought to project Japanese capital into the global arms market. But the Indo-Pakistani conflict and the effectiveness demonstrated by Chinese technologies shattered those illusions. India, increasingly attracted by American weapons, is gradually abandoning Japanese suppliers, who are left with unused production capacity and a failed strategic investment.

Japan thus discovers the impotence of its military industry. On the one hand, it is unable to establish itself as an independent power, and on the other, it is exposed to fierce competition from Western and Asian giants.

The Ishiba cabinet has no line. It lies between conciliatory gestures and empty threats, between openness to American agricultural products and appeals to international law, it expresses nothing but the confusion of a bourgeoisie that has lost its horizon. Concessions to the US—import relief, lowering of quality standards, transfer of market share—only serve to exacerbate economic dependence.

Not even the most hawkish wing of the establishment—the Bank of Japan, with its threats of legal action at the WTO—can propose a way out of the crisis which only continues to crescendo The state apparatus appears divided, powerless, unable to resist the offensive of dominant capital.

The use of the rhetoric of “technological sovereignty” does not mask the real meaning of current policy. This is nothing more than the strengthening of the military-state apparatus as a response to the economic crisis. Cooperation with the European Union in sensitive areas—from cybersecurity to artificial intelligence—has a single purpose. This purpose is the control of the proletariat and the preparation of future inter-imperialist wars. Militarization is not a sign of strength, but of weakness. Capital is in difficulty and seeks what it can no longer obtain in the free market through armed threats.

In this situation, the Japanese working class is exposed to a new intensification of exploitation. Inflation affects real wages, recession eliminates jobs, and the bourgeois state prepares for patriotic mobilization in anticipation of conflict. Every attempt by the bourgeoisie to resolve the crisis—through reforms, alliances, compromises—is doomed to failure. Japanese capital, like any other national capital, is trapped in the crisis of the mode of production itself.

The solution does not lie in defending “sovereignty” or in new imperialist balances. The only way forward is through organized class struggle, under the leadership of the revolutionary party, to transform the commercial and military war between capitalists into a revolutionary civil war against capitalism.