A Brief Overview of Early Union History in Japan

Contributed by Ayse Orha

This study examines the emergence and development of trade unions in industrialising Japan between 1868 and 1926, focusing on heavy industries during the crucial decades from 1890 to 1919. The rise of the labour movement cannot be separated from the broader context of Japan’s rapid industrialisation and nation-state formation after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. In order to compete with imperial powers such as Britain and the United States, Japan set out to modernise its economy, institutions, and society. Modernisation (bunmei kaika) was not only an economic project but also a political and cultural one, framed by the creation of new state structures and a redefined national identity.

The founding of the modern nation-state was driven by former samurai and feudal elites who, supported by powerful zaibatsu dynasties such as Sumitomo and Mitsubishi, consolidated power and avoided the risk of civil conflict. The government undertook international missions to study Western models, invited foreign experts (o-yatoi) to advise in Japan, and systematically imported political, legal, and social ideas from abroad. At the same time, Japan’s own traditions and intellectual debates shaped how these ideas were adapted to domestic institutions and workplaces.

The jiyū minken undō (“Freedom and Popular Rights Movement”) of the 1870s and 1880s exemplified this fusion of domestic and international influences. Articulated by former samurai intellectuals and carried by a growing infrastructure of media, transport, and urbanisation, the movement fostered a culture of public assembly, demonstrations, and associations. While it pressed for a constitution — achieved in 1889 — it also provided a repertoire of practices for expressing demands without descending into uncontrolled violence. These practices later informed the strategies of the emerging labour movement.

Within this context, the study explores how Japan’s first unions emerged, which individuals and ideas were central to their formation, and how disputes, riots, and traditions of collective action shaped their development. It also examines how industrialisation and changing workplace conditions created new social tensions that fuelled demands for recognition and reform. By focusing on the Rōdō Kumiai Kiseikai (“Association for Encouragement and Formation of Trade Unions”) and the Yūaikai (“Friendly Society”), the analysis traces the transformation of labour activism from cautious negotiation to organised mass mobilisation, setting the stage for the broader democratic struggles of the early twentieth century.

Emergence of Unions in the Heavy Industries in Industrializing Japan (1890-1919)

With the beginning of the Constitution and thus a constitutional political system in the period from 1890 to 1919, which spans the end of the Meiji era to the middle of the Taishō era, the Japanese labour movement developed and established itself in the context of the dynamics of industrialisation and so-called 'modernisation' (bunmei kaika). Its beginnings were characterised by a changing workplace, altered labour structures and relations, as well as strikes, uprisings, and the emergence of a new type of working class. This movement was accompanied by intellectuals who introduced Western ideas of class struggle and trade unionism. Heavy industry, in particular, as part of the 'new professions' during this phase, marked the beginning of this labour movement.

The Rise of the Labour Movement: Rōdō Kumiai Kiseikai and the Metalworkers’ Union in Context (1890–1900)

The new labour movement around the turn of the century in Tokyo was characterised by labour disputes, the founding of trade unions, and mass protests. The number of labour conflicts in Tokyo increased from 15 in the years 1870-1896 to 151 in the following 20 years (1897-1916). By 1900, approximately 200,000 Japanese workers had connections to union-like labour organisations. The early movement primarily attracted male workers in the 'new professions', such as boiler makers, printers, or railway workers, who quickly adapted to Western manufacturing techniques. In this context, the Rōdō Kumiai Kiseikai ('Association for the Promotion and Formation of Trade Unions') was founded around 1897 as a pioneering organisation.

Prominent Trade Unionists and Intellectual Currents

The emergence of the Japanese labour movement at the turn of the century cannot be understood without considering its transnational dimension. Takano Fusatarō (1869–1904), long celebrated as the “father of Japanese trade unionism,” was a product of both domestic reform currents and experiences in the Japanese diaspora. Born in Nagasaki and raised in Yokohama, Takano grew up in environments characterised by contact with global trade, foreign communities, and transnational exchange. He was influenced early on by encounters with intellectual circles, the jiyū minken undō, the ethos of Self-Help and risshin shusse (“advancement by personal effort”), combined with the thought of national progress.

In 1886 Takano travelled to the United States, where he studied English and economics while supporting himself through work. He immersed himself in the labour question both practically and intellectually, working at the Garcia sawmill in Point Arena and encountering American labour organisations such as the Knights of Labor. At the same time, he read widely, including George E. McNeill’s The Labor Movement – The Problem of To-day (1887), which introduced him to the history of strikes and the struggle for the eight-hour day. The greatest intellectual influence, however, came from economist George Gunton, who argued that higher wages stimulated consumption, which in turn expanded markets and national prosperity. Takano later summarised this insight, stating that “every effort to better the condition of laborers is of vital importance for the nation”1. This conviction became the intellectual backbone of his later advocacy: the labour problem was not only a question of social justice, but of Japan’s economic and national strength.

Equally important were the migrant networks in San Francisco. In 1891, Takano and fellow workers including Jō Tsunetarō (shoemaker) and Sawada Hannosuke (tailor) founded the Shokkō Giyūkai (“Friends of Labor”), the first Japanese labour association abroad. The Japanese-language newspaper Keisei Shinpō reported on 16 October 1891 under the title Beikoku sōkō ni waga rōdō giyūkai okoru (“Founding of the Japanese Friends of Labor in San Francisco, America”) on its founding, describing it as “an association of Japanese workers in San Francisco, uniting shoemakers, tailors, and craftsmen for mutual aid and the promotion of federation.”2 A year later, Japanese shoemakers went further and established the Japanese Shoemakers’ Alliance (Kashū Nihonjin Kutsukō Dōmeikai, 1892). Their initiative soon faced hostility from exclusionary organisations such as the “Boot and Shoemakers’ White Labor League,” which sought to drive out Asian workers. Yet this very confrontation strengthened a sense of solidarity and dignity among the Japanese Shoemakers’ Alliance. These early migrant organisations linked everyday struggles abroad with a nationalist concern for Japan’s international standing.

Through these circles, Takano entered into contact with American labour leaders. He corresponded with John Hayes of the Knights of Labor and, from 1893 to 1896, with Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Takano admired the AFL’s pragmatic unionism but argued repeatedly that American models could not be transplanted wholesale into Japan. Unlike the United States, Japan’s labour relations were shaped by both large modern industries (shipyards, arsenals, railways) and small workshops, and workers lacked a strong sense of class consciousness. What was needed, he insisted, were organisations rooted in education, mutual aid, and company-based solidarity, rather than militant strikes.

When Takano returned to Japan in 1896, he sought to apply these lessons. A devout Christian and moderate reformer, he advocated gradual improvement and social peace. Strikes, in his view, were dangerous and they risked unleashing anarchism, communism and socialism. Instead, Takano emphasised that the well-being of workers was inseparable from the prosperity of the nation. In one 1894 article he sharply criticised political leaders who argued that Japan’s competitive advantage lay in keeping wages low:

“[…] The welfare of the working people has never entered into the consideration of national affairs […] The argument […] that the cheap wage condition should give a great impetus for extending our foreign trade […] is a declaration to the working class that their interests are in direct conflict with those of other classes […] Any upward tendency of wages will be considered detrimental to national prosperity. […] Once aroused, realization must follow. Then the strong opposition against the existing order and fallacious economic teachings will show itself. Class conflict, bitter and fierce, will be waged. Anarchism, communism and socialism will have their sway.”3

Takano positioned himself within Japan’s intellectual landscape by allying with the Shakai Seisaku Gakkai (Social Policy School), a group of scholars influenced by German social reform. They advocated state-led, capital-friendly welfare measures to preserve social peace and pre-empt socialist agitation. Within Japan, traditional labour brokers or oyakata such as Ozawa Benzō and Muramatsu Tamitarō had already played a role in organising groups of metalworkers in the 1880s and early 1890s. Their efforts did not lead to formal unions but revealed an early impulse toward collective organisation in heavy industry, which Takano and others would later build upon.

The Development of Collective Action and Strikes

The founding of the Kiseikai in 1897 coincided with an unprecedented surge in labour unrest. In that single year alone, more strikes were recorded than in the entire eight years prior, a development closely linked to rising prices, especially for food. The Kiseikai positioned itself not as a craft-specific body but as an umbrella organisation for workers in the rapidly expanding heavy industries. Its purpose was to provide support for unions, labour associations, and collective actions, and to create a forum where demands could be articulated. While the Kiseikai itself did not initiate strikes, it became a rallying point for those who did.

The Metalworkers’ Union (Tekkō Kumiai), founded at the end of 1897, was the first trade union in Japan, established and organised by the Kiseikai. It organised workers in heavy industry — more industrial than craft in its orientation — and set out to combine negotiations with educational opportunities. Membership was tied to contributions, and the union worked closely with managers and oyakata, who saw advantages in negotiating through cooperative channels.

The strike at the Japan Railway Company (JRC) in 1898 became one of the most significant disputes of the pre-war period. Workers demanded respectful forms of address, equal treatment with newly promoted locomotive drivers, faster promotions, semi-annual wage increases and bonuses, and reform of a confiscatory savings scheme. Although their struggle ultimately failed — management was determined to block further militancy and the new Police Law of 1900 banned strike agitation — the episode demonstrated a growing ability to organise and revealed that issues of dignity, discrimination, and social status lay at the heart of workers’ demands.

Other disputes followed, including strikes by ship carpenters in Tokyo and Yokohama (1897–1898), which resulted in successful wage increases and strengthened union organisation. Printers, too, agitated not only for higher pay but for respect. Such demands highlight how early collective actions were deeply shaped by older traditions of protest from the jiyū minken undō (“Freedom and Popular Rights Movement”), in which questions of dignity and recognition had long been central.

The Relationship between Trade Unions and Japanese Democractic Movements

From the outset, the Kiseikai was more than an economic organisation. It supported workers in advancing demands that extended beyond wages, placing emphasis on recognition and equality within society. Heavy industry workers, conscious of their contribution as being responsible for building the emerging nation-state, called for equal treatment and a fair wage system, linking their struggle to the broader project of national modernisation.

The newspaper Rōdō Sekai became an important platform for workers’ voices and a means of education. The Kiseikai stressed the need to raise workers’ knowledge of labour conditions and to empower them through Self-Help. At the time, workers were often regarded as irrational, immoral, and linked to vices such as drinking, gambling, or prostitution. The Kiseikai sought to counter these stereotypes by presenting workers as responsible, rational actors who deserved a place at the negotiating table.

Yet ideological tensions ran deep within the organisation. For Takano Fusatarō, strikes threatened social peace and risked derailing moderate reform. His social-reformist vision was rooted in cooperation between labour and capital and incremental improvement, not in open confrontation. Katayama Sen, by contrast, saw strikes as legitimate instruments of negotiation and viewed the struggle between capital and labour as inescapable. Where Takano identified socialism as the main enemy, Katayama saw capitalism itself as the obstacle to justice.

These divisions had practical consequences. While the Tokyo printers’ union, moderate and strike-averse, eventually joined the Kiseikai, the railway workers’ union — despite leading the largest strike of the early movement — chose not to. By 1899, the momentum began to falter. The ambitious financial structure of the Kiseikai and the Metalworkers’ Union, which promised compensation for dismissals and support for education, proved unsustainable. Membership was unstable, and funds were frequently diverted to private rather than collective purposes, leading to a shrinking organisation.

The movement’s limitations were also visible in its social base. Recruitment centred on male heavy industry workers, while women, miners, and marginalised groups such as Burakumin, Ainu, Koreans, and Taiwanese were largely excluded. This exclusion fractured the working class and narrowed the scope of unionism. State repression further compounded the difficulties. The government, closely allied with industrial capital, prioritised Japan’s rapid industrialisation in the global competition. The Peace Preservation Law of 1900, restricted social organisation and demonstrations, was used to suppress trade unions and effectively crushed the early labour movement until 1912.

Nevertheless, the Kiseikai and the Metalworkers’ Union left a lasting imprint. Their efforts marked the first sustained attempt to create a labour movement in Japan, laying the foundations for the enterprise-based unionism that would characterise later decades.

The Yūaikai and the Expansion of Labour Unionism (1912–1919)

The emergence of the Yūaikai as the second major organisation of the Japanese labour movement was shaped by the “interim phase” (1900–1912). This period, often described as an era of political violence (minshu sōjō ki), was marked by unorganised, spontaneous uprisings and strikes. In the years following the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05), urban populations grew increasingly dissatisfied with worsening living conditions and economic insecurity. Workers, identifying themselves as sovereign actors alongside the Tennō, demanded recognition from the state.

At the same time, workplaces underwent profound transformation. The old oyakata (master-apprentice) system gave way to direct company management, reflecting the increasing dominance of capital over both the economy and the shop floor. This shift made negotiations for workers more difficult and reduced the autonomy of traditional intermediaries. The rapid expansion of heavy industry, fuelled by war reparations, swelled the workforce in factories and arsenals, while industrial urban centres grew dense with slums and poverty. Out of this environment, the Yūaikai emerged in 1912 as a new attempt to organise workers under radically changed conditions.

Prominent Trade Unionists and Intellectual Currents

The Yūaikai was founded by Suzuki Bunji, a Christian social reformer whose concern with poverty (hinkon) and the daily hardships of working people motivated him to act. Suzuki used the Unitarian Church in Tokyo as a space where workers could gather, receive education, and deliberate about their problems, including legal matters. His aim was to provide a legitimate platform for workers to emancipate themselves and press their demands without immediately inviting repression. As he noted early on that the “Yūaikai is not a society of words; it is a body which stresses action. It is not a collection of thinkers” and “Unity is ...strength. We are in a world where you cannot do anything unless you unite.... Unity is power.”5 It is clear, that he wanted to provide a place and organization for practical reasons and not as an intellectual platform.

Suzuki was well aware of the earlier Kiseikai’s fate: divided by ideology, financially unstable, and ultimately suppressed by the state. Determined to avoid these pitfalls, he advocated peaceful cooperation with capital and industry. Drawing inspiration from the British Friendly Societies, he named his organisation Yūaikai, the “Friendly Society,” signalling an orientation toward mutual aid and conciliation rather than confrontation, being close to Takano Fusatarō’s orientation rather than Katayama Sen’s. This is equally reflected by Katayama calling the Yūaikai a “tool of capitalists” and a “paper union … a mere aggregation of names.”6

Initially, Suzuki rejected strikes and focused on workers’ Self-Help: reading, physical strength, saving money, and cultivating dignity in order to earn the respect of employers. His demands included profit-sharing, equal treatment, fair promotions, old-age pensions, and bonuses — measures intended to elevate workers’ individuality and social standing. This was important for him, as he mentioned at a social science conference in 1913: “Factory workers today…more than anything want to be treated as human beings.”7 His thinking was influenced by Professor Kuwata Kumazō (1868-1932), who argued that the state had a duty to support workers and encourage mutual-aid unions.

Suzuki’s perspective shifted after 1916, when he travelled to the United States and met Samuel Gompers. On his return, he began to speak more openly against capitalism, discuss class struggle, and accept collaboration with socialists. In his own words:

"I have moved from social reformism to socialism. At first I believed in social reformism and considered socialism a bad thing or at least practically impossible. I felt that ... reformism was practical, effective in bringing out the strong points of capitalism, in correcting its weakpoints. But when I came face to face with labor problems, the spirit of antagonism welled up within me. The capitalists had persistently treated the laborers as slaves."⁸

This radicalisation was particularly visible in the Osaka section (Dōmeikai), which became increasingly militant. Regional federations (rengōkai) also gained influence, and the Yūaikai evolved into a space where diverse ideas — from reformist to socialist — converged. Within the organisation, leadership gradually passed from intellectuals to workers themselves. Figures such as Hirasawa Keishichi (1889-1923), an organiser in Nankatsu (Tokyo’s industrial district), articulated an “imperial-democratic” consciousness: all Japanese, he argued, were equal before the Tennō, and exploited workers therefore had the right to assert their dignity and demand better treatment. As he showed in a play in 1917 with this sentence:

"The Japanese blood is not fit for shouts of socialism ... The time has come for the Japanese people to take back their souls as Japanese.The enemy of Japan's worker is not the government or the capitalist. Japanese workers should not asct as workers. We should act as humans and people of the nation (kokumin)."⁹

Others, including Nosaka Sanzō (1892-1993), Nishio Suehiro (1891-1981) and Matsuoka Komakichi (1888-1958), rose to leadership roles; Matsuoka’s assumption of the budget in 1917 significantly weakened Suzuki’s control. Meanwhile, Kagawa Toyohiko (1888-1960), returning from the United States in 1917, became a leading figure in the Kansai section, pushing for a more democratic and revisionist line.

The Yūaikai’s rise was facilitated by broader social change. The spread of literacy and newspapers — legacies of the nation-building policies of the 1870s — allowed the organisation to communicate effectively with its members and expand its influence nationwide.

Further Development of Collective Action and Strikes

Like the Kiseikai before it, the Yūaikai served as an umbrella organisation that provided mutual aid, education, financial support, and meeting spaces for workers and their associations. Its financial structure was more robust than its predecessor’s, with higher membership contributions and a decentralised network of branches in Tokyo, Osaka, and beyond. At first, the Yūaikai shared Takano Fusatarō’s reformist outlook, rejecting strikes in favour of negotiation and benefiting from donations even from sympathetic capitalists.

Yet the landscape of labour changed rapidly. From 1915, the Yūaikai began to take part in strikes, and by 1917 it could no longer avoid direct involvement. That year marked a turning point: the strike at the Ikegai Ironworks in January, followed by action at Japan Steelworks in Muroran, coincided with a dramatic rise in labour disputes. The numbers speak for themselves: 108 strikes in 1916; 398 in 1917 involving 57,000 participants; 417 in 1918 with 66,000; and nearly 500 in 1919.

Grassroots anger drove this escalation. Thousands of men and women, especially in textiles, were no longer willing to petition politely. Female workers, often confined to dormitories, played a key role. In June 1914, 2,800 women at the Tokyo Muslin Company struck against wage cuts, long hours, and poor food; Suzuki himself intervened to mediate.

Urban unrest also spilled into broader protests. The Hibiya Riots of 1905 had already shown the potential for violent demonstrations, and the following decade saw frequent disturbances over inflation, fares, and taxes. These were part of the minshu sōjō ki, an era in which the urban poor (hinmin) began to act as citizens (kokumin), demanding recognition in return for their taxes and labour.

Even in this wave of radicalisation, Japanese protests retained a distinctive form. Workers largely avoided machine-breaking and extreme violence, instead favouring petitions, negotiations, and public appeals through newspapers.

Growing Trade Union Influence on Japanese Democracy

In its early years, the Yūaikai resembled a friendly society more than a militant union. Suzuki emphasised this and urged workers to cultivate skills, education, and morality to gain social acceptance. Crucially, unlike the Kiseikai, the Yūaikai admitted women and even created a women’s department (fujinbu) and a women’s newspaper (Yūai fujin) in 1916. Yet women remained bound by patriarchal structures and had little influence over decisions. Other marginalised groups — colonial subjects, Burakumin, Ainu — were likewise excluded until the organisation’s transformation into the Nihon Rōdō Sōdōmei (“Japanese Federation of Labour”) around 1919–20.

The Yūaikai’s leadership initially came from intellectuals and Christian reformers, but by 1916–17 the organisation shifted toward more militant advocacy. The focus turned from individual cultivation to collective recognition equal human beings deserving dignity and respect. The Yūaikai became active in political campaigns, supporting universal male suffrage, the repeal of Article 17 of the Police Law, and Japan’s participation in the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The First World War and the Russian Revolution reshaped the ideological climate. The labour movement’s discourse evolved from calls for “status improvement” to demands for “liberation.” Anti-capitalism and class struggle, once marginal, gained traction, especially among younger members. In August 1919, the Yūaikai even welcomed socialist leader Sakai Toshihiko (1871-1933) as a guest, signalling its openness to radical voices.

The government’s own stance contributed to this radicalisation. Suzuki’s exclusion from the Paris Peace Conference (1919) and the state’s preference for a government-backed union at the ILO (1919) deepened mistrust and fuelled anti-capitalist sentiment within the Yūaikai.

By 1917, the organisation had grown from thirteen members in 1912 to 20,000 nationwide. In August–September 1919, it was reorganised as the Sōdōmei, with craft- and industry-based unions replacing regional branches and a more democratic leadership replacing Suzuki’s personal authority. The Sōdōmei openly declared its opposition to capitalism and demanded freedom of association, a minimum wage, arbitration, workers’ compensation, universal suffrage, and reform of the Police Law. This turn toward militancy reflected both Japan’s industrial expansion and global influence of left ideas.

Changes in the Workplace and Capitalist Productive Relations

Changes in workplace organisation and capitalist production were central to the development of the labour movement. Reparations from the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95) had financed massive investments in heavy industry: Ishikawajima Shipyard, for example, expanded from 800 to 5,000 employees between 1909 and 1918, while the Koishikawa Arsenal doubled its workforce to 20,000.

At the same time, companies abandoned the old oyakata contracting system in favour of direct management. This deprived foremen of autonomy and reduced their power, prompting some to turn to the Yūaikai for support. For thousands of workers, the change meant confronting their identity as wage earners in large enterprises, fuelling resentment and a sharper sense of worker consciousness.

Employers sought to reinforce loyalty by cultivating “enterprise consciousness” — encouraging workers to identify with their firms. Progressive managers, seeing themselves as modernisers, even tolerated limited union activity, attempting to domesticate it into company service. Out of this tension, enterprise unionism became the dominant form of Japanese trade unionism. Factories functioned like corporate families, with managers imposing routines and codes of behaviour that reinforced hierarchical dependence.

The wartime boom intensified the contradictions. Inflation soared while wages lagged behind, eroding living standards and driving discontent. The Police Law of 1900 remained in force, prohibiting agitation, recruitment, and strikes, and forcing unions either underground or into moderate forms. Yet these very pressures laid the foundation for the surge of worker activism after 1917, with the Yūaikai at its centre.

Conclusion

The labour movement in industrialising Japan between 1890 and 1919 emerged at the intersection of domestic transformation and global influence. Its origins lay in a period of rapid industrialisation, urbanisation, and social dislocation, shaped by the tension between Japan’s unique historical trajectory and the selective adoption of Western ideas. The formation of unions reflected a negotiation between national traditions and transnational models of organisation.

The emergence of unionism was driven by the interplay of key individuals, ideas, and intellectual currents. Central to this story were leading figures whose ideological orientations differed sharply, yet together defined the contours of early labour activism. Takano Fusatarō, often regarded as the founder of the Japanese labour movement, was a Christian reformer who absorbed ideas from American trade unions such as the AFL. He favoured moderate, incremental change, placed education and Self-Help at the centre of his strategy, and rejected strikes as disruptive to social peace. Katayama Sen, by contrast, leaned towards socialism, insisting that strikes were legitimate tools of negotiation and demanding both socio-economic reforms and political rights such as universal male suffrage. Their disagreements, particularly within the Rōdō Kumiai Kiseikai, highlight the ideological divisions that marked the movement’s beginnings. New forms of communication—newspapers, pamphlets, and worker periodicals—were crucial in spreading reformist and socialist ideas, while the growing mobility of industrial workers created the networks necessary for collective action.

A decade later, Suzuki Bunji and the Yūaikai carried the labour movement in a new direction. Like Takano, Suzuki began as a reformist Christian inspired by British Friendly Societies, committed to mutual aid and peaceful negotiation with capital. Yet after his 1916 trip to the United States and encounter with Samuel Gompers (AFL), Suzuki became increasingly radical, embracing the language of class struggle and opening the Yūaikai to socialist influences.

Collective action, strikes, and unrest became the most visible expressions of a changing labour consciousness. Influenced by the practices of the jiyū minken undō, early strikes were relatively restrained, but by the late 1890s workers had begun to assert themselves more forcefully. The railway strike of 1898 demonstrated the power of organised labour, even as it provoked harsh repression. The so-called “interim phase” (1900–1912) was dominated by political violence and unorganised unrest, particularly in the wake of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05), signalling widespread public discontent. By the mid-1910s, however, the Yūaikai’s growing membership and the rise of class consciousness led to an escalation of strikes that were both more tactical and more radical, though still characteristically Japanese in their avoidance of indiscriminate violence or machine destruction. These patterns of protest reflected a distinctive tradition of collective action within the Meiji period.

Changes in workplace structures and capitalist production relations also played a decisive role. The expansion of heavy industries, the rationalisation of factory labour, and the introduction of mechanised production transformed the workplace into a crucible of social tension. These developments fostered solidarity among workers, heightened awareness of exploitation, and created the material basis for sustained organisation.

The relationship between unions and democracy remained fraught with contradiction. Workers in heavy industries saw themselves as the true builders of the modern nation and demanded recognition as sovereign citizens (kokumin) alongside the Tennō. Takano’s suspicion of political demands contrasted with Katayama’s insistence on suffrage and broader democratic rights. The state, closely tied to capital and the zaibatsu, repressed the labour movement through the Police Law of 1900, effectively silencing it until the re-emergence of the Yūaikai in 1912. In 1919, the government’s decision to sideline the Yūaikai and promote its own state-backed organisation for the ILO only deepened mistrust and fuelled radicalisation within the free labour movement. The idea of “imperial democracy,” which blended loyalty to the Tennō with demands for recognition and dignity, encapsulates the paradox of nationalism and labour struggle in this period.

In conclusion, the emergence of unions during Japan’s industrialisation was the result of a dynamic interplay between individual actors, ideological currents, and shifting social structures. The Japanese labour movement drew on inherited ideas of reformism and socialist thought, balancing the tension between peaceful negotiation and militant action. While transnational influences shaped both the movement’s ideology and its organisational forms, national traditions—such as the jiyū minken undō and earlier patterns of popular protest—continued to define the character of collective action. From the Rōdō Kumiai Kiseikai of 1897 to the Yūaikai’s transformation into the Nihon Rōdō Sōdōmei in 1919, this trajectory laid the groundwork for later developments, including the expansion of political rights and the achievement of universal male suffrage in 1925.