Introduction to the Left, Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism for Understanding the World

Justice and Truth

Introduction to the Left, Communism, Socialism, and Liberalism for Understanding the World

Justice and Truth

Socialism and Communism were once considered absolute truth and justice. This situation likely persisted for about 100 years. It could be said that this was a broad social consensus, regardless of one’s political stance. “Socialism is justice”—this was a phrase that essayist Natsuhiko Yamamoto, who serialized essays in Bunshun for a long time, wrote repeatedly like a catchphrase. I believe that was exactly the case. Therefore, learning about Socialism, Communism, and the Left serves as valuable education and culture, and it is actually useful.

If You Don’t Understand Communism, You Don’t Understand the World

At the risk of being misunderstood, if you don’t understand what is called Communism or the Left, you cannot understand the world. This is similar to how it is difficult to conceptualize the world without some knowledge, or at least an image, of the Bible, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. Like these religions that govern psychology and justice, understanding them is difficult, so it is enough to just have an image. There will be times when things you don’t understand suddenly make sense if you have the knowledge or imagery explained here. I suspect that even many people involved in the Communist Party, the Left, the Socialist Party, or Liberal circles do not understand it well themselves. Before even calling it difficult, it is complicated. It is not like mathematics or natural sciences where logic flows clearly; it is full of contradictions. Human emotions and desires affect the arguments, political conveniences come into play, and it is somewhat chaotic. While acquiring the knowledge is easy, organizing it clearly is not. It requires a processing method that feels like having multiple people in your head, constantly repeating ideological schisms and competition. It is troublesome beyond measure. This is true of the New Left movement in Japan 70 years ago, the bloating of the Chinese Communist Party, and the proliferation of political correctness. Knowing the full picture or theorizing it is extremely difficult. Originally, leftist leaders were often intelligent, educated elites. That is precisely why competition and debate were active, and they had to establish dominance (mount) to survive. This prevents the separation of thought from emotion, will, and desire. They end up becoming political “politicians” (political fixers) who use idealism and realism depending on the situation—wily veterans who cannot just speak in platitudes—rather than true statesmen. With that said, I will try to explain it as simply as possible.

Is Equality the Most Important Thing for Humans?

Modern ideals probably include “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Human Rights, (Patriotism)” from the Enlightenment, the bourgeois revolutions, and the French Revolution. Looking back, “Human Equality” might have been the most key point. One direction is the abolition of the class system. Another direction is to eliminate economic disparity. Equality is sometimes in opposition to individualism and freedom. It becomes collectivism. In English, Communism is written as “Communism,” but instead of translating it as Kyosan-shugi (Communism), it might be better to translate it directly as Collectivism. Anyway, the goal of equality is set, whether vaguely or clearly. The final goal for humanity is a state where classes disappear, and neither the Communist Party nor the non-party proletariat exists anymore. This point is unshakable. Therefore, communist regimes like the former Soviet Union or present-day China are still in the middle of the revolution or social change; they are in a state where the true revolution has not yet been achieved. This was admitted by both China and the former Soviet Union. However, whether it is okay to assert this so clearly is the part that doesn’t go as cleanly as math or science. But the fact that the goal is clear is probably important for properly understanding Communism, Socialism, and the Left. Since this is the only point that does not waver, it is a point to remember if you want to have a somewhat coherent thought or discussion. Here, there are two problems.

Problem 1: No Concreteness in the Final Destination of History—The Classless Equal Society

The first problem is that there is no concreteness in the state of equality, which is the final stage of history. We only understand it as something vague and fuzzy. Anarchism research might have been about that, but rather than focusing on what the final stage is actually like, it is easier to see that most resources of thought and action were poured into the direction leading there, without the concreteness of the final state. They accepted that the final state without classes, the state, or the Communist Party was historically determined, or perhaps they operated on a conclusion-first basis without much debate. The example Marx gave was primitive communism, where humans in primitive times shared means of production and were equal. However, the modern age is not the primitive age, so we must explore concrete methods for human equality where means of production are shared and there are no classes, different from primitive communism. Or else, we must return to the primitive age.

Problem 2: Even If There Is a Final Equal Society, the Method to Reach It Is Unclear

The second problem is that the specific method to achieve the society where humans become equal, which is historically determined, is not clear. Or rather, Marx presented specific methods to some extent. But it is still ambiguous. It is ambiguous and lacks concreteness. Marx was a thinker, but thought alone does not move the world; practice and practitioners are important to implement and make it function. First, to bring about a revolution in a mature capitalist society, he thought a Vanguard Party was needed to lead the revolution, becoming the vanguard of the revolution. Later, this came to be called the Communist Party. This party leads the masses, called the proletariat, to practice revolution. Violence accompanies revolution, but this is like a historical providence. Recently, the feeling has become “violence is bad no matter what, terrorism is bad no matter what,” but that is a relatively recent development. There is a way of thinking that we can reach the final destination of humanity—equality, no classes, shared means of production—peacefully through parliament. But since this was not the way of a Vanguard Party, it did not become major, or rather, it was viewed as heresy. Just as the state is a violent apparatus that assumes defense and public order to prevent war and crime, the Vanguard Party or the military organization of the revolution’s execution unit is needed as a violent apparatus to destroy the system violently to change it. So, they prepare for it. If a bloodless revolution occurs or violence is not needed as a result, that is fine. But that is a convenient way of thinking for when things go well; preparation for when things go poorly is also necessary.

Lenin’s Method as a Revolutionary

Lenin can be called a great revolutionary. Strictly speaking, it was Lenin and the group around him. However, a great revolutionary does not necessarily build a society well after the revolution. There are great revolutionaries who are good only at revolution but do not have a clear concrete image of the post-revolution. Mao Zedong was excellent at succeeding in the revolution by striking when national power was declining and establishing one-party rule by the Communist Party. However, his concrete society-building after the revolution was useless. The Great Leap Forward was a failure, and as for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, no one knows what he wanted to do. It is unclear whether he intended to eliminate the Communist Party to achieve true sharing of means of production by the proletariat and eliminate classes, or not. Since the intentions and results were bad, it can be evaluated as a failure in post-revolution society building. In Japan, Saigo Takamori might be similar. Saigo imagined something like the world of Yao and Shun (legendary Chinese sage emperors). It is interesting that both Marx and Saigo looked to the ancient past for an ideal society. What was amazing about the Lenin group was that their practical business was solid. This is where they excelled because there were many educated elites. It is wonderful that they properly organized the Vanguard Party. It was also good that they struck at the gap of declining national power during World War I. However, in Russia, China, and later Japan, one could hardly say that capitalist society was mature. It is impossible to leap from there to an equal society, the final form of human history, all at once. Therefore, things like the Two-Stage Revolution Theory emerged, and various disputes continued later.

Socialism and Communism, Socialist Party and Communist Party

In Marxian terms, Socialism is the transition process of Capitalism, and Communism is the completed form. Also, Socialism was originally a fluffy concept. It talks about the socialization of means of production, but it is ambiguous about the denial of private property. Also, attention is needed regarding the relationship between Socialism and Communism, and the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. Furthermore, usage differs between the present day and the 19th century. And usage differs between Japan and the rest of the world. Before World War I, there were Socialist Parties, but they vanished due to conflicts between countries during WWI. Lenin was the first to name a party the Communist Party. This was probably adopting the name of Communism, the ideal and complete society, for the Marxist Vanguard Party. Naming a party the Socialist Party meant aiming for socialism, so it is essentially the same. Due to backlash against traditional Socialist Parties and for branding purposes, he changed his party, the Bolsheviks, to the Soviet Communist Party. But the meaning of the Communist Party changed within the context of Lenin and Stalin. Thereafter, in Europe, the term Social Democratic Party was used more than Socialist Party. This became an eclectic flow aiming for collectivism, welfare, and equality within the parliament rather than strict Socialism or Communism. The Socialist Party in Japan is a bit different. It went from Socialist Party -> Democratic Party (Minshinto) -> Democratic Party (Minshu-to) -> Constitutional Democratic Party (Rikken Minshu-to) to the present. The Social Democratic Party (Shamin-to) seems like the successor to the Socialist Party, but since the Constitutional Democratic Party took most of the members, it has become nominal. The Democratic Party for the People (Kokumin Minshu-to) is a group that drew from the flow of the Democratic Socialist Party (Minsha-to) even within the Democratic Party. In the West, since the authority of the Socialist Party fell during WWI, the image since then has been either the Social Democratic Party or the Communist Party.

The Soviet Difficulty: Stalin and Trotsky

The Soviet Union was not capitalist but a serfdom at the stage of Imperial Russia. Even though serfs were emancipated, it couldn’t become a mature capitalist society immediately. Since it was authoritarian and despotic, it had aspects incompatible with capitalism. Thus, Russia at the beginning of the revolution was a feudal country rather than a modern society after a bourgeois revolution or capitalism. In such a case, in Lenin’s terms, the Vanguard Party leads to carry out a democratic revolution to make the country a mature capitalism. Once the capitalist system is mature, a socialist revolution is caused. Then, an ideal society—where classes are gone, equality exists, the proletariat shares means of production, and there is harmony in the group while having anarchic and individualistic elements—is completed as the end of history. However, until reaching the final stage, the elite group of the Communist Party, the Vanguard Party, must pull the proletariat. At this stage, the country is divided into the Nomenklatura (the ruling class, Communist Party members, elites) and the Proletariat (the ruled class, non-party members). Due to post-revolution chaos, civil war, adversity, and World War II, this system became the default. This is called Soviet-type Communism. Admitting that this is not the Communist society that is the end of history and the completed human equal society, it became this way perhaps because there was no other choice as a realistic route, or because someone like Stalin seized power. Or perhaps there is a “Socialist Trap” here, where it stops at the point where the Communist Party becomes a one-party dictatorship and rules the proletariat. Since the party keeps expanding, this might be what is called Parkinson’s Law. Also, because they do not proceed with democratic liberal capitalism like free capital movement or exchange-supreme economy, but become like a planned control economy, or perhaps because they despise or do not recognize free innovation and economic growth, they tend to fall into a state like a perpetual recession. Then, since it does not become a mature capitalism, it tends to become a stagnant society where nothing changes due to the persistence of the authoritarian one-party rule of the Communist Party. Also, to maintain the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party or because they do not recognize factions and diverse opinions, purges and lynching/internal violence (Uchigeba) tend to occur. Then, like Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and the purges after the 6th National Conference of the Japanese Communist Party or the New Opportunism Incident, a large number of capable talents disappear cleanly for about a generation. Also, when workers try to cause a true socialist revolution to bring about Communization where workers own the means of production, the Communist Party takes actions that are preposterous or incomprehensible, getting in the way. The Hungarian Revolution and the Cultural Revolution can be cited as examples. The conflict between Trotsky and Stalin also lies in this point. The conflict between the “Socialism in One Country” theory to solidify the domestic front vs. the “World Revolution” theory to increase communist countries worldwide tends to stand out. However, there is a difference in views on the developmental stage of socialism. Under the Stalin line, the thinking becomes solidifying and defending the communization of the Soviet Union first, so any activity that threatens the Communist Party—even if it is a true socialist revolution—becomes something that threatens the Soviet Union and becomes a target of hostility. Stalin engaged in power struggles rather than class struggles. Mao was similar. In the end, instead of creating a true communist society, they indulged in the perks of the privileged class after destroying the old feudal or absolute monarchy social order during the process of creating communism (one-party dictatorship and capitalization). Instead of fixing class disparity, they increased it. They couldn’t win against human or societal weaknesses and went in a different direction. The difference between Stalin and Trotsky lies in the evaluation of the revolutionary stage or socialist stage. Historically, where the society is located—where the Soviet Union is, where China is, where Japan is—becomes a big problem in Marxism or Marxist Communism/Socialism. What needs to be done changes depending on historically what stage that society is in. If it is mature capitalism, there might be a possibility to make it a communist state with a single revolution by the proletariat. Imperial Russia, China during the Qing Dynasty or Republic era, and Japan in the Taisho or early Showa eras also fought over what stage the society was in. The pre-war Japanese Communist Party was divided into the Koza-ha (Lecture Faction) and the Rono-ha (Worker-Peasant Faction). It is thought that the conflict between Trotsky and Stalin had differences and conflicts in the evaluation of the developmental stage or revolutionary stage of the Soviet Union, and in some cases societies other than the Soviet Union, in addition to World War vs. One Country theories. Eventually, Stalin won and Trotsky went into exile, but Kan’ichi Kuroda, the charismatic leader of the Japan Revolutionary Communist League (Revolutionary Marxist Faction), was influenced by Trotsky. There are essentially only three communist organizations functioning in Japan: Kakumaru-ha (Revolutionary Marxist Faction), Chukaku-ha (Middle Core Faction), and the Communist Party, so let’s remember these three. Of these, Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha are derived from the same Japan Revolutionary Communist League. To go a bit further, the Japanese Communist Party actually conducted armed struggles across Japan from 1950 to 1955 during the Korean War, under instructions from the Soviet Cominform (1955’s 6th National Conference ended this). This resulted in casualties including police officers, and they used young people for local activities such as the Village Operations Corps (Sanson Kosakutai). The person leading the Village Operations Corps at this time was Yoshihiko Amino, who later became a star player changing Japanese historical studies. I have presented about this person at the Japanese Society of Pathography. During this period, the Communist Party was divided into the International Faction and the Mainstream Faction (Shokan-ha) and was fighting, but at the 6th National Conference in 1955, Kenji Miyamoto of the International Faction grasped real power. He took a distance from the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties, took an independent route, reduced the armed revolution line, and except for “Enemy’s Action Tactics,” basically did not hold arms or military organizations within the party and shifted to expanding influence in the parliament. Yoshihiko Amino was among the people cut off at this time. In this way, looking at the history of Japanese thought, famous people often heard of in contexts unrelated to Communism or the Left appear in droves. This shows how strong the idea was in Japanese society, or rather international society and the whole world, that Socialism singing of human equality was Justice, Truth, and Absolute. It shows there were many people who participated, resonated, and supported it openly or secretly. The Japanese Communist Party was established in 1921 (Taisho 10) and was greatly backed and influenced by the Comintern of the Russian Communist Party, the International Communist Party. It’s not that there was no socialist movement in Japan until then; Japan was “bright red” even before the war. The Faculty of Economics at the University of Tokyo was a faculty created from the Faculty of Law to research Marxist economics. Socialism (Communism) was thought by society as a whole to be Justice, Truth, and Absolute, to the extent that one was considered to have no heart if they were not a socialist. Complete human equality is arguably a wonderful ideal. It is thought that even right-wingers and conservatives understood that sentiment. There was a feeling that a guy who didn’t lean towards socialism in his youth had no spirit and no promise. Fascism in Italy and Germany also branched off from Socialism. The formal name of the Nazis is the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and while it may not be of the Marxist genealogy, it was ordinarily influenced by it. I recall Mussolini was also something like a socialist when he was young. Japan also had a tendency towards thorough equality except for the Emperor during the 15-year war. In the Greater East Asia War, people like descendants of feudal lords went to the battlefield as ordinary soldiers (not officers). Anyway, the flow of Marx-Lenin-Stalin deviated from the flow aiming for original Communism. Rather, as in the Hungarian Revolution, it alienated or obstructed the true revolution of workers for realizing Communism. It was not only Trotsky who accurately saw through this but also figures like Kan’ichi Kuroda mentioned earlier. The Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha he belonged to are factions created by people who resonated with Kuroda’s Trotskyist thinking. So, among the three Marxist organizations currently practically functioning in Japan, the Communist Party is Marxist-Leninist, but the remaining Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha are Trotskyist. From the perspective of Communism/Socialism/Marxism, the latter might be said to be the legitimate genealogy. Although the Communist Party is moving on an independent route distancing itself from the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties, since it principles not to recognize violent revolution in its platform except for “Enemy’s Action Tactics,” it is currently quite far from the original flow of Marxism to cause revolution by violence. On the other hand, “Enemy’s Action,” meaning depending on the situation, violence is acceptable. For example, if Japan gets involved in a war and society falls into chaos, they might cause a violent revolution depending on the situation, so they have not been removed from the surveillance list of the Public Security Intelligence Agency. Just to say, it might be misleading to say violence is not bad, but the idea that violence and terrorism are absolute evils and unacceptable regardless of the reason is a relatively recent way of thinking. It can be said that the trend that submitting to terrorism is bad rose gradually due to various terrorisms centered on the global New Left and sometimes the Communist Party after the war, and it became a “Terrorism is Absolute Evil” theory with the 9/11 attacks in the US. On the other hand, violence called war is acceptable; they conducted the Iraq War blowing up the claim that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction while knowing it was a false charge, so violence is not considered an absolute evil. However, in civil issues at the civil society level, the trend that violence is an absolute evil has heightened.

Brief History of Japanese Socialism

After the Meiji Restoration, Japan adopted Western civilization, so naturally, it imported Socialism as well. A famous incident is the High Treason Incident. At this time, the family of Shichihei Yamamoto, about whom I also presented at the Japanese Society of Pathography, left Wakayama and moved to Tokyo due to the influence of this incident. The Japanese Communist Party was formed in 1921 (Taisho 10), and in the late 1930s, caused incidents like the Popular Front Incident, internal conflicts, and lynch-murders, was suppressed, and soon disappeared. The Communist Party at this time was divided into the Koza-ha and the Rono-ha. In the Koza-ha vs. Rono-ha dispute, the Koza-ha centered on the “Lectures on the History of the Development of Japanese Capitalism,” claiming “Capitalism is mature and revolution is near.” The Rono-ha, centered on Hitoshi Yamakawa and Kanson Arahata, claimed “Japan is still in the bourgeois revolution stage and needs step-by-step development,” developing the “Capitalism Controversy.” The Communist Party was crushed, but Communism, Socialism, and Marxism were ordinarily active if they didn’t operate openly. Even at the level of national leaders like Fumimaro Konoe, there were many socialistic people. What is important before the war is the 1932 Thesis, a platform of the Comintern. It is said that anti-Japanese thought and masochistic view of history were born from this, as well as the denial of the Emperor system. It is said that Soviet personal grudges were also mixed in here. There was the humiliation of losing the Russo-Japanese War, the Siberian Intervention, interests in Manchuria, and the fact that the Soviet Union and Japan were in constant conflict. There is a theory that the term “Emperor System” (Tennosei) was created at this time, but the point is that in the realization stage of Communism singing human equality, it is troublesome if a special existence like the Emperor exists. During the war, many Communists were in prison as political prisoners or as ordinary prisoners for injury causing death from internal lynching. A relative of mine was also in prison and was picked up by Iwanami (Publisher) after the war to compile a philosophy dictionary. After the war, GHQ released Communists all at once, and they immediately started rebuilding the party and various activities. On February 1, 1947 (Showa 22), labor unions led by the Japanese Communist Party planned what is called the “February 1 General Strike.” It was a nationwide General Strike plan aiming to overthrow the Shigeru Yoshida administration and establish a democratic people’s government, with up to 6 million participants planned including public and private sectors. However, it was forced to cancel just before by MacArthur’s (GHQ) order. It was a phantom strike that had a great influence on the post-war Japanese labor movement. If it had been executed, society would have fallen into great chaos and Japanese history might have changed. People who left communist activities at this time include Tsuneo Watanabe (Nabetsune) of Yomiuri Shimbun and Seiichiro Ujiie of Nippon TV.

The Turning Point of the Japanese Communist Party in the 1950s

Due to interference from the Soviet Union in 1950, division and struggle began within the Communist Party. In short, it was an order to incite armed uprisings in Japan during the Korean War and disturb the rear. There was a thought in the Japanese Communist Party to go with a peaceful line, but that was rejected, and they tried to use the Japanese Communist Party to cause disturbances in Japan. The sequence of events was that in 1950, the Cominform published a treatise (commentary) titled “On the Situation in Japan” in its organ paper “For a Lasting Peace, for a People’s Democracy!” and criticized Japan. The content of the criticism severely criticized the revolution line by “peaceful and democratic methods” (such as Sanzo Nosaka’s “Patriotic View”) advocated by the Japanese Communist Party at the time as “not anti-American, but anti-Japanese,” and urged a shift to the armed struggle line of the Soviet and Chinese style. Due to this intervention from Cominform, the Japanese Communist Party split into the “Mainstream Faction (Shokan-ha)” (majority of leadership like Kyuichi Tokuda, Sanzo Nosaka) and the “International Faction” (Shojiro Kasuga et al.), and intense conflict and confusion continued for several years (The 1950 Question). At the 6th National Conference in 1955, Kenji Miyamoto took the initiative and cut off or sidelined the people of the action units. You often hear the term “1955 System.” It originates from three things in 1955: the formation of the Liberal Democratic Party, the formation of the Socialist Party, and the establishment of the current system of the Communist Party. Furthermore, in the Secret Speech of 1956, the Soviet Union itself admitted Stalin was wrong. Moreover, in the Hungarian Revolution, when workers tried to share means of production themselves and create a truly disparity-free society, the Soviet Union sent the army to obstruct it, causing massive casualties. Thus, the view that the Japanese Communist Party was not recognized as a Vanguard Party expanded, and the New Left movement arose. Such movements existed globally, but Japan was also strong. In the 1960 Anpo (Security Treaty) protests, hundreds of thousands or millions of citizens surrounded the Diet, showing the spread and strength of the movement. Since the Security Treaty bill passed, the movement was considered a failure, and the New Left movement became increasingly active. Various forces other than the Communist Party were born, said to be 5 currents and 13 factions, or 23 factions, or 24 factions. Among these, the ones effectively surviving today are the Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha. Famous ones include the Japanese Red Army and the United Red Army, known for the internal lynching Sanngaku Base Incident, the Asama-Sanso Incident, the Yodogo Hijacking, and the mass shooting at the airport in Tel Aviv. And apart from such factions, the Zenkyoto (All-Campus Joint Struggle League) of the student movement is famous as a horizontal connection. Roughly speaking, the 60s was a very tumultuous era worldwide, not just in Japan, with various labor union activities, Narita struggles, campus disputes, and armed struggles between faction sects. Why did factions fight each other? Because the authority of the Communist Party as the Vanguard Party of the revolution fell, and they had to decide the next Vanguard Party. It felt like a struggle unfolded over the Vanguard Party, with each saying “I am the one.” To overthrow capitalism, there was a way of thinking to go through parliament, but it is difficult to transition to a communist regime by voting. Or, expanding influence in parliament and accumulating reforms gradually to finally reach Communism is also an option. The current Japanese Communist Party, Social Democratic Party, Constitutional Democratic Party, left-wing of Democratic Party for the People, and Reiwa Shinsengumi might be on such a line. On the other hand, there is a way of thinking that revolution cannot be achieved without violence. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Demons, and the unfinished parts of The Brothers Karamazov seemed to have this as a theme. By the way, Dostoevsky was also caught in a gathering of activists, nearly executed for treason, and is thought to have been under surveillance by the Russian Empire for his whole life. Marx himself basically assumed violent revolution. As I may have written before, it has not changed from the past to the present that the state relies on violence in the end to support public order and defense. Also, although we don’t see much violence in Japan now, young people back then had grandparents who swung Geba-sticks (staves) or great-grandparents who went to war ordinarily. Even if Zenkyoto swung Geba-sticks and clashed with riot police or made noise with internal conflicts, the surrounding adults were the war generation. Pre-war adults had conscription experience and battlefield experience, so they might have watched over them with warm eyes as the youthful indiscretion of children. Even after laying down the non-violence line in 1955, the Communist Party kept the option of violence called “Enemy’s Action Theory” mentioned earlier. Besides that, when universities that were the base of the Communist Party like the University of Tokyo were about to be taken over by Zenkyoto, they had a history of using a non-public armed military organization called the Togakuren Action Corps (commonly called Akatsuki Action Corps) to protect UTokyo against the New Left. This organization was purged in the New Opportunism Incident after Zenkyoto calmed down, so it does not exist now. Purge does not mean killing, but mental attacks like pushing them into a narrow place, shining lights, not letting them sleep, and making them write kinds of inquiries and self-criticisms repeatedly. It is not physical violence. Because they crushed a generation here, a hole opened up in the generation of leaders between Secretariat Chief Fuwa and Secretariat Chief Shii in the Japanese Communist Party.

Turning Point of the 1970s

I wrote 5 currents and 23 factions, but only Chukaku-ha and Kakumaru-ha remain among these. The Communist Party is just Left-wing, so it is neither New Left nor Extreme Left. Small factions like the Kakurokyo (Revolutionary Workers’ Association) of the Socialist Party lineage based in Kamagasaki or San’ya seem to survive, but they are weak minority forces. Crushing each other, being too radical and running to terrorism and being crushed by public power, or originally lacking organizational power and dispersing… only two factions remain now (excluding minor ones and those that transformed into different organizations). Activists also have lives, so they need jobs. They also need a place for activity. They also need military organizations. And they cannot remain without solid organization. These two factions remained because these conditions meshed well. Basically, there are labor unions of civil servants and private companies, and universities as jobs and places of activity. Labor unions are various labor union organizations currently supervised by Rengo (Japanese Trade Union Confederation), with Sohyo (General Council of Trade Unions of Japan) for civil servants and Domei (Japanese Confederation of Labor) for private companies. Now both are integrated into Rengo. Words like “Army in the past, Sohyo now” were used commonly in the past, but people today may not have heard them. “Giants, Taiho, Tamagoyaki” or “Heike, Navy, International Faction”—dodoitsu-like phrases were often used in the past. JNR (National Railways) was privatized and Japan Post was also privatized, but Nikkyoso (Japan Teachers Union) and Jichiro (All Japan Prefectural and Municipal Workers Union) are still famous left-wing groups. The National Railway Union is gone, but the JR Union is still the base of Kakumaru-ha. With the failure of the occupation of UTokyo Hospital and the UTokyo struggle, the New Left movement and student movement died down, and the realization of Socialism or Communism by revolution through violence became unrealistic. Even now, only Chukaku-ha and Kakumaru-ha are practicing it seriously. Chukaku-ha actively comes out in the open and has a conspicuous side, but Kakumaru-ha is thoroughly underground tactics, so they do not stand out.

There are politicians known to have had some relationship with Chukaku-ha, but there are probably not many politicians generally known to have a relationship with Kakumaru-ha. When New Left activities died down, the foundation and purpose of people with leftist thoughts became unclear. The Communist Party aims for peaceful communism through parliament, which is confusing and indistinguishable from Social Democracy. Japan also has the Socialist Party, which is another confusing thing. As mentioned before, Socialist Parties existed in European countries in the sense of Vanguard Parties before WWI, but the Japanese Socialist Party of the 1955 System is a bit different even with the same name. It is a hodgepodge party with Marxists, Social Democrats, people with vague socialist or welfare-ish ideas, modified capitalists, and people with diverse ideas, supported by several labor unions. In the past, there was also the Democratic Socialist Party (Minsha-to), which was based on Domei-affiliated labor unions and was a group affirming the status quo, conservative along with the LDP, but it is gone now. After the 1970s, fragmentary events like the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries bombing occurred, and groups participated in international terrorism. However, it can be said that the purpose drifted away from communizing Japan, or more clearly, the purpose disappeared.

Origins of Liberals and Poly-Core (Political Correctness)

When purpose and organization disappear, humans might fall into a state of anomie. But instead of anomie, perhaps due to some psychological mechanism, the direction of activity changed to anti-discrimination, feminism, environmental protection, anti-war, anti-nuclear power, anti-government, anti-Japan, naturalism, and new religions. With the end of the “Grand Narrative” of “overthrowing the capitalist government by revolutionary struggle and realizing Communism, a ‘Communist society where all humans are equal, share means of production, and have no classes,'” it diffused into “Small Narratives” like victim stories, narratives of grudge, and anti-patriotic porn. From the feeling of fighting for and winning the big objective of a ‘Communist society where all humans are equal…’ with masculine Machoism, male chauvinism, Nietzsche’s Übermensch thought, or Will to Power, people came to hold small narratives. These involve Ressentiment, jealousy such as grudges and envy, playing the victim, victim mentality, and patrolling to find, expose, and hang up such things. This is not just former activists. Since the sensation that “Socialism is Justice, Truth, and Absolute” was possessed by everyone more or less, it permeated and was shared by people unrelated to leftist activities more or less. If a psychological explanation is needed, Nietzsche’s philosophy might be good. Leftists and Soka (Gakkai) had many educated elites. Educated elites, whether in China’s imperial examination system or modern bureaucracy, tend to have a personality that is narcissistic—not truly confident in themselves but unconsciously seeking approval and self-efficacy. They flatter those above them in competition and are arrogant (“Yaroudai”) like petty officials, or in some cases, domineering like base villains to those below them. If the situation allows, such types become paranoid/delusional personalities and act like dictators. However, since they do not have true confidence, they are weak against criticism and denial. They cannot objectively face their own faults or mistakes and sometimes become neurotic or hysterical. To begin with, compared to modern Japan, it was an era where people held huge trauma, which is true globally. Childhood experiences were raised in more adverse conditions than today. It was a poor era, and poverty creates various mental disasters. It was an era of war, so there were only people who experienced war. Amidst this, the Dankai generation (baby boomers) was a generation singing “We don’t know the war,” so even though exam wars were tough, they were a generation with relatively less trauma. Even in the same social movement, the 1960 Anpo generation had memories of war in childhood, but people who experienced war as soldiers were mixed in while they themselves did not go to war as soldiers. Generations born up to 1921 (Taisho 10) were battlefield veterans. Those born around Taisho 10 were the generation who went to the battlefield as students (Student Mobilization). Generations born up to 1930 (Showa 5) had their personality formation finished by the end of the war. Generations born after 1930 (Showa 5) had not yet had their personality formed at the time of defeat. Such generation theory/age theory/era theory should be researched more in psychiatry and various fields. But even if it was researched, it seems it did not become common sense or accepted ideas when people view history and society, and there is a tendency that it is not verified in new generations.

To Begin With, Equality and Liberty

Equality is quite difficult. We don’t know what constitutes equality. If it is human equality, humans who are the same from molecular arrangement to everything might be equal, but since their existence in time and space is different, their futures are considered to branch off, so there inevitably are some differences. If the position in time and space could be superimposed exactly and they moved in the same way, it would be exactly equal, but that is surreal or psychotic and incomprehensible. It is easy to say equality abstractly, metaphysically, ideally, vaguely in the head, or with the mouth. But if questioned concretely, many sects might branch off depending on the answer. If there were a place like Heaven, true human equality might be realized. If you remove “Human” from “Human Equality,” it might become like some environmental leftist groups. Furthermore, modern ideals like Liberty and Equality might coexist if there were a special place like Heaven, but in reality, they have a trade-off relationship. Also, like Equality, abstract Liberty and concrete, realistic Liberty are different things. Because this is different, there must have been theories like the “Theory of Ideas,” but trying to implement this becomes difficult. So, Archimedes, who was more of a practitioner or realist, must have thought of a different theory.

Don’t Know Why, But Came to be Called Liberal

The trend of finding fault with, accusing, and hanging up such a series of small equalities and small discriminations is probably called “Liberal” due to various historical circumstances. The sensation that pursuing the ultimate “Human Equality” is Justice, Truth, and Absolute is understandable to people above a certain age. I don’t know about very young people. It is precisely because this was shared by people of a wide range of ages in the world that recent Political Correctness (commonly called Poly-Kore) was established. Poly-Kore can be deconstructed in modern philosophy. It is weak against athletic associations, conservative stubborn old men, or stubborn old men who are simply not smart (not in a bad way) and Machoism. Conversely, even among intellectuals, it is weak against field-oriented or positivism. If there is a rough and tough person who says “What’s wrong with discrimination?” or “It doesn’t matter if I’m discriminated against,” the code of discrimination does not hold and may be dismantled. In that sense, a generation that does not know discrimination might have strength against Poly-Kore, like the not-smart stubborn old man. If they say, “Eh, discrimination? What’s that?”, discrimination does not hold. In the past, there was a long era where people who reacted like that were caught, hung up, guided, or re-educated, but now such things are probably decreasing. For example, it is impressive that feminist and former President of the University of Tokyo, Chizuko Ueno, looked happy while being utterly defeated by ethnologist Keisuke Akamatsu. Ms. Chizuko Ueno might have felt some crampedness as well. Equality might be ceasing to be just about humans now. There are many countries where the number of pets is greater than the number of children. Pets like dogs and cats living with you for more than 10 years are like 3-year-old children, and sometimes a deeper attachment is formed than with real children. There was an argument to ban whaling because dolphins and whales have intelligence, but it seems to be somewhat subsiding now. There is a book called Hang in there, New Left. In the modern age where Neoliberalism and Globalism have gone too far, it would be good if the Left (Public Security refers to the Communist Party; Extreme Left is left of the Communist Party; from the Communist Party’s view, Leftists more centrist than them are opportunists) worked hard. But we cannot stand it if they brandish Justice, Truth, and Absolute. In environmental issues, there are signs that they conversely worsened environmental problems, like EVs and solar panels.

Collectivism and Individualism

Lenin named the Vanguard Party, which should be the only elite party leading the revolution, the Communist Party. This word Communism is interesting. Directly translated, it can be translated as Collectivism. Equality must be related to Collectivism. The opposite of Collectivism is Individualism. Individualism seems related to Liberty. If one can grow up soundly and freely without weird complexes or inferiority feelings, having independence, self-awareness, autonomy, and strength not to care what others say in Individualism and Liberty, and have true confidence in oneself—at that stage, an equal society where diversity exists and the scheme of discrimination does not hold no matter what people say about one’s character might be created. We can think this way because society has become rich and humanity has progressed; it might have been impossible in the past. But perhaps some people like aristocrats, samurai, and clergy had established equality in such a form since long ago. Since this is also Liberty, I think it is possible as a direction to pursue in the future. It is also a way of thinking in modern thought, so wouldn’t it gain a certain consensus?