SYSTEM NOTICE

Auto translation by AI. Be sure, accuracy, nuances and authorial intent may not be fully reflected.

Why did the young people who held up ideals end up killing their own comrades?

2026年8月13日 15:56

I used to think the student movement was a "story of passionate youth"

Helmets, wooden staves, and barricaded campuses. For a long time, I pictured the student movement of the late 1960s as "a scene of dazzling youth, fueled by ideals." People who stood up against the establishment, believing in the future. If I categorized it that way, it was easy to understand and felt comfortable. But that categorization always felt a bit off. After all, why did that movement disappear so abruptly, as if abandoned by society? If they were truly fueled by ideals, why didn't it last? I had never found an answer to that question. The dialogue between Akira Ikegami and Masaru Sato, "Turbulent History of the Japanese Left: Student Movements and Extremists 1960-1972," quietly but relentlessly unravels the truth behind that discomfort.

You can read "Turbulent History of the Japanese Left: Student Movements and Extremists 1960-1972" by Akira Ikegami and Masaru Sato here.

When the "enemy" was no longer outside, the blade turned inward

This book traces the twelve years from the 1960 Anpo protests to the internal purges, and finally to the 1972 Asama-Sanso incident. I was shocked by the account of the events that took place at the United Red Army's mountain base in Gunma. Amidst the failure and isolation of the movement, they repeatedly denounced their comrades in the name of "sokatsu" (summation/purging), and it is said that twelve out of twenty-nine comrades lost their lives. When the "enemy" that was supposed to be outside could no longer be seen, the logic of seeking purification turned toward their closest comrades. It is pointed out that when this incident was widely reported, the public sentiment, which had previously been sympathetic to the movement, turned instantly to disillusionment. Here, Ikegami poses a more universal question: not about the ideals themselves, but about how the human organizations that handle those ideals fall apart. The book also delves into the conflict between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party over the 1960 Anpo protests, what the theorists of the New Left believed in, and how the movement branched into various sects, providing a three-dimensional view of why the movement repeatedly split. I encourage you to read this book to understand the dynamics of human groups that cannot be explained by simple good or evil.

The way I look at "that era" now reflects back on my own life

Before reading this book, the student movement was completely "someone else's business from a distant past" to me. But after finishing it, every time I see a group or movement split internally in the news, the logic of that mountain base comes to mind. Why does a group that pursues righteousness begin to exclude those closest to them? I began to feel that this was not an event unique to the 60s, but something that could happen in different forms in the workplace or in online debates. For example, when I see comrades turning into enemies over trivial differences of opinion, I now pause to consider whether the logic of purification is at work, whereas before I would have just thought of it as a mere interpersonal conflict. I have become able to read history not as a "story of someone else's business" but as a "mirror that illuminates my own path." This change has certainly deepened my daily perspective.

If I had remained ignorant, I would have continued to misunderstand that era

If I had dismissed that movement as a beautiful story of youth, I would have missed the most important lesson beyond it forever. Akira Ikegami is a leading news commentator who has spent years breaking down complex events, and Masaru Sato is an author who knows the front lines of diplomacy and is well-versed in organizations and ideology. I felt that because these two people with different backgrounds engage in dialogue, they are able to depict a profound history of the Left that does not lean toward one-sided condemnation or glorification. Did I really understand that era? This is a book I want those who have thought so to pick up.