17
It was at a time when China carried on no trade with other countries that they said, "Though we have a nine years' store of rice, it is still insufficient" (of course, at that time other countries were also incapable of exporting). However, at present, when arable land all over the globe is eroding and being otherwise ruined, and the population is growing explosively, there is no doubt that food for human beings is heading for insufficiency. Though for Japan imports are still possible, it will become difficult to import in the future, and we will be in the same position as ancient China. When such a food crisis results, we must not allow the money economy to interfere with food storage. Also, since money serves as the lubricant by which all the city's evils arise, we must get rid of it sooner or later.
18
Debts are an excellent means of exploitation. In order to pay back their loans, the farmers must work themselves into the ground and offer large amounts of animal products.
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 theCountry
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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. Theway of direct cultivation [31] depends only upon the blessings ofNature; it is the Way of Heaven in which we live by flowing withNature.
"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 andBusiness — 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 toDeath"
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 TrueRevolution
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 ThereAre 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).