A Brief Explanation of Japan’s Left Wing, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and Liberalism

A Brief Explanation of Japan’s Left Wing, Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and Liberalism

First, let’s visualize the conclusion with a chart.

Term	Goal	Method	Vibe (Characteristics)	Habitat in Japan
Left Wing	A “New” Society	Reform/Revolution	Progressive, Innovative	Distributed throughout society
Socialism	Equality	Redistribution of wealth, Planned economy	Big Government	Former Socialist Party, Social Democratic Party
Marxism	Realization of Communist Society	Historical Materialism, Class Struggle	“Scientific” (self-proclaimed), Theoretically armed	Communist Party, Some Universities
Communism	Extinction of Class and State	Violent Revolution, Dictatorship of the Proletariat	Final Form, Utopia	(No pure realized examples)
Liberal	Individual Dignity, Fairness	“Fluffy” Justice/Emotion	Anti-discrimination, Environment, Political Correctness	Constitutional Democratic Party, Media, Civic Activists

---

– The Tendency to Use Them All the Same Way

Recently, the terms Left Wing, Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism seem to be used interchangeably. Especially “Left Wing” and “Liberal.”

I suspect many people haven’t sorted out the differences.

For example, there is a lot of prerequisite knowledge needed to really understand things like:

• Socialist State: A transitional period under the dictatorship of the proletariat (The state exists).
• Communist Society: The final stage where the state has withered away (The state does not exist).
• Or the fact that people initially thought Communist society would be more efficient than capitalism, but when they actually tried to build socialist states, the efficiency was terrible.

I will explain these terms simply and why they have become so entangled.

– What is the Left Wing?

“Left Wing” refers to progressives, reformists, and revolutionaries (?).

The key point is that even in reform, it means making things new, not returning to the old ways.

Therefore, “returning to the past” is not Left Wing, even if it is called reform.

It can be something never experienced before, a first in human history, or copying something another country is doing.

In a word, it is the ideology of “Making it New.”

The etymology comes from the French Revolution.

In the assembly formed during the French Revolution, the reformists, progressives, and improvers sat on the left side of the parliament, which is where the name comes from.

France, the birthplace of the term “Left,” is easy to understand.

If they try to do something new, they are top runners among Western developed nations and top runners for humanity.

Their catchphrase is like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Human Rights,” and they try to realize these things.

The time of the French Revolution was an era where democracy, capitalism, the industrial revolution, the Enlightenment, and nationalism all poured in at once.

Whatever they did was new. Returning to the old ways like the Restoration of the Monarchy is “Right Wing,” so you should remember that Left Wing means “Making it New.”

– Socialism

The meaning of Socialism has also shifted throughout history.

However, it is easier to understand if you know the meaning of socialism after Marxism.

Socialism is the “Ideology aiming for Equality.”

It is good to remember that the main theme and goal of socialism is “Equality.”

If it were just socialism, “Equality” would be enough, but the meaning changes slightly after Marx.

Socialism before Marxism is sometimes called “Utopian Socialism,” saying it wasn’t scientific or lacked proper theory.

Since Marx theorized it properly, it is sometimes called “Scientific Socialism.”

Marxist socialism is the most major type, but in a broad sense, it is still fine to understand socialism as an ideology aiming for “Equality.”

Marxist Socialism aims for “A Communist Society where people are economically equal, share the means of production, and there are no classes.”

Class indicates your economic standing.

No matter how poor, if you are a capitalist, you are the Bourgeoisie; no matter how rich, if you are a worker, you are the Proletariat.

In that case, individual investors and pensioners might be called Bourgeoisie.

I don’t know if the Emperor of Japan invests, but if he eats only by labor, then technically—though an extreme argument—even the Emperor is a Proletariat.

He works so busily; if being Emperor is a profession, he might be one of the top-level hardworking celebrities in the world.

However, we are embedded in capitalism.

Even if the Emperor doesn’t invest directly, if he has a bank deposit, the bank will invest, lend, or buy government bonds on its own.

Since he probably doesn’t keep cash under a mattress, he might be indirectly Bourgeoisie, but that is another story.

Also, even a poor Proletariat likely has some bank savings, so they might have a bit of a Bourgeoisie aspect. In a capitalist society, drawing a clear line of class structurally might be difficult.

On the other hand, “stratum” or “hierarchy” is fluffier.

It is fine to think that if someone is somehow important or rich, their stratum is high, and if the opposite, it is low.

– What is a Communist Society?

Marx embodied socialism and became the mainstream of socialism.

Communism is a society where “People are economically equal, share the means of production, and there are no classes.”

This is the state humanity reaches at the end, so it is the End of History and the termination of humanity.

This has never been realized.

It might have been realized in primitive times or small communities.

Perhaps it is happening in small island nations.

However, no country has become a Communist Society as the final destination of modern Western civilization.

Marx said such a society would come as an inevitable law of history.

Lenin caused a revolution and tried to force such a society into existence.

However, since the Russian Revolution, even countries that maintained socialist regimes during the Cold War and after have never realized a Communist Society.

We use the term “Communist Country,” but this means “A country aiming for Communism,” not a country that has realized a Communist Society.

“Socialist Country” is the same.

In Marxism, a Socialist Country is “A country aiming for Communism.”

Therefore, in Marxism, Socialist Country and Communist Country mean the same thing.

Another point is the current regime of the country.

Even if a country aims for a Communist Society, it is unreasonable to call a country that is democratic, capitalist, liberal, supremacy-oriented, and based on an exchange economy “Communist.”

In the first place, there is no example of such a country aiming to realize a Communist Society as a nation.

In such countries, some citizens or some political parties may aim for a Communist Society, but other people tend not to.

When we say “Socialist Country,” it refers to a country that is actually remodeling the country itself from top to bottom—changing institutions, laws, education, etc., from democracy/capitalism/liberalism to realize a Communist Society.

There are many such countries.

The Eastern Bloc during the Cold War was like this, and currently, China is technically so (on the surface).

Therefore, Socialism and Communism are often used with the same meaning:

1. Aiming for a Communist Society.
2. Remodeling capitalism to realize a Communist Society.Countries aiming for these two seem to be called Socialist Countries or Communist Countries.

– The Existence of Socialist and Communist Countries Deviates from Marxist Theory

In Marx’s theory, capitalism matures, and inevitably a revolution occurs, leading to a Communist Society.

“Revolution” is essential.

There is no gradual transition from capitalist society to communist society.

The society is supposed to be flipped over “Bam!” in one go by revolution to become a Communist Society.

Therefore, half-hearted existences like “Socialist Countries” or “Communist Countries” become state systems that are somewhat un-Marxist.

It becomes an indecisive society and country that is neither capitalist nor communist.

Marxist theory requires a revolution to change from capitalism to communism.

This is called Historical Materialism.

From Marx’s perspective, this view that “Change of regime = Revolution/Overturning” ends up dragging them down later.

– The Socialist Party and the Communist Party (and incidentally the Democratic Socialist Party)

The difference between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party is confusing, so I will insert a brief explanation.

Socialism and Communism are different.

Socialism is a broader concept than Communism.

Socialism is the pursuit of “Equality.”

Communism has more detailed conditions like “Economic equality, sharing of means of production, disappearance of classes.”

Within socialism, communism became such a large force that they are often regarded as the same thing.

The influence of Marx and his surroundings must have been strong.

However, there is socialism that is not communism.

There is Social Democracy, abbreviated as the Social Democratic Party (Shamin-to).

This is a way of thinking that tries to realize greater equality within democracy and capitalism without changing them.

Using Japan as an example, under the 1955 System, the LDP, Socialist Party, and Communist Party solidified, but various factions formed.

In 1955, there was the “Sixth National Conference” (Rokuzenkyo), and since then, the Communist Party has been monolithic. Simply put, bureaucratic control within the party was strong, so heretics were expelled, purged, left, or kept idle, making it monolithic.

The Socialist Party was formed in 1955 by merging the Left-wing Socialist Party and the Right-wing Socialist Party.

The Left-wing Socialist Party was the Kyokai-ha (Socialist Association faction), which is basically communist.

Later, an even more left-wing Kaiho-ha (Liberation faction) was formed.

Well, the Socialist Party had its own history of alliances and splits… the right-wing structural reformists were crushed by the Kyokai-ha and Kaiho-ha, and the Kyokai-ha split into the Sakisaka faction and Ota faction…

Those who couldn’t keep up with the left-leaning nature of the Socialist Party formed the Democratic Socialist Party (Minsha-to), and roughly speaking, this leads to the current Democratic Party for the People (Kokumin Minshu-to).

After the collapse of the Cold War, the Socialist Party joined the ruling coalition, but then split or changed names.

What remains now is the Social Democratic Party, which has become a very small party.

This is a descendant of the Socialist Party Left-wing.

The majority of the Socialist Party changed its name to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), then to the Democratic Party (Minshin-to), and then to the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (Rikken Minshu-to), leading to the present.

The Democratic Party for the People split from the Constitutional Democratic Party.

The Democratic Socialist Party (Minsha-to) is now gone.

It used to have the “Domei” (Confederation) type labor unions as its support base, and the Domei type within the current “Rengo” (Japanese Trade Union Confederation) feels like the support base for the Democratic Party for the People.

– The Relationship between Labor Unions and Orthodoxy

For Socialist and Communist parties, political claims are important, but Organization is crucial.

Governance of the organization is important, but the Support Base is especially important.

The most important support base was the Labor Union.

In Marxism, the story is that the Bourgeoisie class is overthrown by the Proletariat class in a revolution to achieve a Communist Society.

The Proletariat means wage workers.

This has a deep relationship with labor unions.

Labor unions are what organized the workers.

The Socialist Party had the Sohyo (General Council of Trade Unions) lineage, the Communist Party had the Zenroren (National Confederation of Trade Unions) lineage, and the Democratic Socialist Party had the Domei lineage as support bases.

There is also Zenrokyo.

When the Cold War collapsed, they tried to reorganize the unions and created Rengo as a unified labor front.

Rengo is a merger of Domei and Sohyo.

At this time, Zenroren did not participate because the Communist Party considered the reorganization to be right-wing.

Roughly speaking, within Rengo, the Sohyo lineage supports the Constitutional Democratic Party, and the Domei lineage supports the Democratic Party for the People.

Sohyo was for government/public sector unions, and Domei was for private sector enterprise unions, so there was a difference in their nature from the beginning.

– The Scramble for Labor Unions

The scramble for organizations can be seen everywhere in the world, but it is important in politics, socialism, and Marxism.

The reason labor unions feel opaque or like a haunt of demons (Chimimoryo) is that they are like a battleground for political power.

The way to steal a labor union isn’t as simple as discussing and changing support to another party; it becomes messy behind the scenes.

Especially after the New Left (known for factions like Kakumaru-ha, Chukaku-ha, Japanese Red Army, United Red Army) sprang up around 1960, not only did the Socialist and Communist parties fight over unions, but the New Left also joined the scramble.

Trotskyism is particularly adept at hijacking other organizations.

Trotsky was kicked out of the USSR by his rival Stalin (he fled), becoming a “world revolution ronin,” so he lacked an organizational base and tried to hijack organizations in various countries.

The French Socialist Party, for example, was hijacked by Trotskyists.

This hijacking is called “Entrism” (Entryism/Kanyu-senjutsu), and Trotsky refined this method.

Since almost no New Left remains in Japan except for Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha (both from the Revolutionary Communist League), who were pioneers in introducing Trotskyism to Japan, you can see how important securing an organization is.

Hijacking an organization is called Entrism.

Entrism has existed for ages, but the Entrism of the New Left, especially Trotskyists, was outstanding.

Regarding orthodoxy, the Socialist Party was a grass-cutting field for Entrism.

They say Japan is a spy paradise, and that is true, but even setting aside foreign spies, domestic spies are active enough.

Well, this isn’t just a Japanese story.

Because of this Entrism, things get complicated.

For example, even if you say Socialist Party, parts of it might be hijacked by Kakumaru-ha.

The mottled nature of the Socialist Party is no less than that of the LDP.

The Japanese Communist Party (JCP) distanced itself from the Soviet Communist Party and the CCP under Marxist-Leninist principles and established a dictatorship under Kenji Miyamoto, so it was strong against Entrism.

For labor unions, the Left, the New Left, Communists, Marxists, and Socialists (Socialism varies, but since Marxism ≒ Communism is overwhelmingly mainstream, it’s not wrong to roughly see it as Marxism ≒ Communism ≒ Socialism ≒ Left Wing), the union provides the Revolutionary “All-in-One Set”:

• The Proletariat (subject of revolution)
• Organization of the Proletariat
• Workplace and activity base
• Place for activities/struggle (demos, strikes)
• Recruitment of new revolutionaries/organizing (Org) to replenish personnel
• Base (place to stay)

So, it becomes a scramble.

Sometimes they take it by physical struggle, sometimes by hijacking like Entrism. Even then, sometimes they make their affiliation public, and sometimes they lurk and stay inconspicuous like Kakumaru-ha.

The latter example is JR Soren Tokyo, which is a base for Kakumaru-ha, but the No. 2 of Kakumaru-ha, Akira Matsuzaki, separated from the main body led by Kan’ichi Kuroda and pretended to be a separate organization.

There is a theory they later split up, but this is too underground, so I don’t really know the truth.

The privatization of JNR (JR), Denden Kosha (NTT, KDDI), and the Post Office can sometimes be seen clearly through the lens of weakening these government/public sector unions.

Also, moves like the liberalization of education, incorporation of universities, privatization of third-sector or municipal water/electricity, or outsourcing to companies/NGOs might be union-busting. Or, since corruption and crony capitalism have become severe in Japan, it might be for politicians to let their relatives make money. Conversely, it might be activists trying to secure bases, funding, and personnel.

Labor unions are indeed a haunt of demons or underground, but having such a perspective might be useful in various ways.

– Schools and Universities

Labor unions are important, but universities are also important.

Both the Socialist and Communist parties have student organizations like Shaseido (Socialist Youth League) and Minsei (Democratic Youth League).

For example, Heizo T. was Minsei, and Akira I. was Shaseido.

They are subordinate organizations of the Socialist and Communist parties and are reserve armies for revolutionaries (activists?).

Even if they don’t become revolutionaries, it’s fine if they diffuse into society as cells.

The Communist Party controlled the student council of the University of Tokyo (Todai) since before the war.

It’s fine if they increase revolutionaries, sympathizers, and cells from Todai students and infiltrate various parts of society.

If it’s Todai, they can stand at the top of bureaucracy, politics, and the business world.

It was fine when the Communist Party occupied or governed the student councils of each university, but due to the continued loss of authority of the Communist Party, people who left, were expelled, or were forced to leave the party formed New Left groups one after another and tried to hijack university student bodies, which were the strongholds of the Communist Party.

The New Left swarmed around 1960 and tried to become the vanguard party of the revolution replacing the Communist Party.

The New Left also meddled with Zengakuren (All-Japan Federation of Student Self-Government Associations), which connects the student bodies of each university and was originally supposed to be Minsei’s stronghold.

Non-sect radicals and Zenkyoto (All-Campus Joint Struggle Committee), which tried to unite beyond party factions, tried to hijack Todai Hospital, Todai itself, and the Todai student council, incurring the wrath of the Communist Party.

It might sound immature, but the Communist Party crushed Zenkyoto not only with Minsei but also with the “Togakuren Action Squad” (Akatsuki Action Squad—the dark side of the Communist Party engaging in covert activities in the dark of dawn, composed of students from other universities, non-student adults, yakuza, and workers).

When adults get serious—and by adults back then, I mean professionals of physical force like war veterans and former soldiers living ordinary lives—kids like Zenkyoto or students who didn’t know war didn’t stand a chance.

Well, for such reasons, universities are important alongside labor unions.

The New Left is said to have had “5 currents and 13 factions” or actually nearly 100, but the only ones remaining with decent numbers and aiming for revolution are Kakumaru-ha and Chukaku-ha (though what they want to do is suspicious).

However, organizations like Kakurokyo (Shaseido Kaiho-ha—New Left despite being Shaseido) still survive because they control Kyushu University or Meiji University, and for example, Hosei University is a stronghold of Chukaku-ha.

– The Transformation of 1968-1970 and the Birth of Liberals

The doubt, “Is Equality really what humans seek most?” has existed for a long time.

The birth of Fascism can be said to have happened because Mussolini realized that patriotism and such things were more important to humans than equality.

As for the birth of Liberals, two points can be considered that dampened the motivation of traditional Leftists, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists.

– The Failure of the Russian Revolution

Originally, in Marxist theory, social progress occurs as follows:

Mature Capitalist Society → Revolution → Communist Society

Marxism is also classical economics.

Looking at current so-called Communist countries, it is often misunderstood, but a Communist Society is supposed to be a system with higher productivity, production, and efficiency than Capitalist Society.

Neither Marx nor classical economics changes the idea that society progresses.

They do not consider resource or environmental problems.

Furthermore, they believe history has an end.

Rather than believing, they are convinced.

This is likely a conviction inherited from the eschatology of the biblical cultural sphere.

End times, resurrection, and the Last Judgment are subtly difficult to derive solely from the Bible (though it depends on which Bible the sect adopts).

Religion isn’t just about scriptures; extra-scriptural doctrines, oral traditions, and religious organizations are necessary.

These things supplement the Bible, and Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all stand on the worldview that humanity has a religious end.

Trying to reach this conclusion by self-study is probably impossible; to become a Christian-like Christian, Jewish-like Jew, or Muslim-like Muslim, one would likely need to join a religious order and receive education.

Lenin created another theory to do the impossible, which Marx regarded as reckless.

This is called Leninism.

Basically, Marxism and Leninism are a set.

Not theoretically, but history happened that way.

Let’s call it Marxism-Leninism (ML) collectively.

Marx might say, “It’s annoying to be lumped with Leninism,” but that’s how history went.

There are other currents in Socialism, Marxism, and Communism, such as Eurocommunism represented by Antonio Gramsci, but I will omit them.

It is the theory that it will work out even in backward societies where capitalism hasn’t penetrated at all.

The Two-Stage Revolution Theory.

They created the theory and had two revolutions, but this also didn’t go according to plan or theory.

The theoretical Two-Stage Revolution is as follows:

Backward Society → Bourgeois Democratic Revolution → Realize Democratic Capitalist Society → Mature Capitalism → Socialist Revolution (Proletarian Revolution) → Abolish Capitalism, Proletariat seizes power, abolish classes, share means of production, eliminate economic disparity → Completion.

This theory also didn’t go as ideally planned.

Realistically, things have timing.

If the February Revolution in Russia achieved the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution, a period to mature capitalism was needed, but by November of the same year, they immediately launched the second stage, the Socialist Revolution.

Lenin hoped that the Russian Revolution would be a fuse for advanced capitalist countries to start revolutions, but it didn’t happen.

Russia became a loner.

Marx said that if a backward society starts a revolution, a scramble for wealth will occur, leading to even worse outcomes, and it kind of turned out that way.

That said, Russia/USSR worked hard and managed to create the Communist Bloc seen during the Cold War.

Even though it was called the Communist Bloc, the countries belonging to it were not Communist Societies.

They were built as Socialist Countries aiming for a Communist Society.

– The Miscalculation of Marx, Socialism, and Communism

Lenin and his comrades calculated that if Russia started a revolution, revolutions would occur worldwide, but it didn’t go conveniently, so they ended up running around defending the revolution in Russia alone.

As modern people know, unlike Marx’s imagination, Socialism has lower productivity than Capitalism.

It can be buoyed momentarily by Five-Year Plans or wars, but over time, productivity inevitably worsens.

This is probably also a miscalculation.

Incidentally, Lenin created the Vanguard Party Theory and Democratic Centralism Theory to cause an unreasonable revolution.

The Vanguard Party leads the entire two revolutions.

However, with that, it’s not guaranteed that the Vanguard Party will be democratically elected during the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution.

So, he changed course to let the Vanguard Party have a one-party dictatorship, and be democratic within that.

He kept changing course, but unlike Marx, Lenin was a revolutionary and practitioner, not a scholar, so it couldn’t be helped.

Marx also had the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat by a Vanguard Party, but this was considered a temporary transitional period.

After Lenin, the one-party dictatorship became the norm.

Lenin named this Vanguard Party the Communist Party instead of the Socialist Party used until then.

The Communist Party’s one-party dictatorship, where the party is above the state and rules the state, is the “Communist Country” we imagine.

This is ML ideology and is Socialism, but not a Communist Society.

Or rather, the miscalculation of Lenin and his comrades was that the Communist Party would concentrate power and wealth in a one-party dictatorship and stop aiming for a Communist Society.

Speaking of comrades, Stalin was a bit different and seemed to want to maintain this system.

This is called Stalinism.

Stalin advocated Socialism in One Country, and Stalin won the power struggle against his rival Trotsky, who advocated World Revolution, resulting in a Stalinist state.

There was criticism of Stalin, and the JCP distanced itself from the Soviet Communist Party, but in reality, it is Stalinism.

– The Episteme of 1968-1970

I think 1968-1970 was the turning point of the era where two major problems became apparent.

“Major problems” means it became clear that history does not unfold as Marx said.

Left Wing, Socialism, Marxism, and Communism were among the top 1 or 2 most important Grand Narratives of the modern era.

What became clear during this period was: “Communism is Impossible.”

Revolutions do not happen in mature capitalist societies.

Revolutions happen or are caused only in countries that aren’t capitalist at all or are poor.

And major Communist countries like the USSR and China seem to stop once they create a Communist Party one-party dictatorship.

And far from realizing a Communist Society, they try to fix the regime, expand inequality, and become corrupt.

The Vanguard Party called the Communist Party solidifies with a bureaucratic organization of party members called Nomenklatura, and there is no democracy within it; rather, the tendency for power to concentrate on one individual within the party becomes prominent.

The Proletariat is ruled by a dictatorship called the Communist Party, and the dictatorship is ruled by a dictator.

It’s fine if they do it themselves, but they try to force it on other countries.

After WWII, various countries became, or were forced to become, Communist countries.

Among those countries, there were some that genuinely tried to create a Communist Society.

When Hungary tried to reform itself into a Communist Society, it was suppressed by the Soviet army.

This is called the Hungarian Revolution.

In 1968, when Czechoslovakia, which was industrialized even before WWII among Eastern European countries, tried to reform socialism, this was also militarily suppressed by the Soviet Union.

Incidentally, the Cultural Revolution took place in China, but this was also a power struggle; a movement for Mao Zedong to regain power after losing it due to the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward policy.

In Japan at the time, only the Asahi Shimbun, the only media recognized by China, could report information from China, but since they didn’t report facts, there were many people infatuated with China and Mao Zedong.

Makoto O. of Beheiren, a writer famous for his travelogue “Look at Everything,” engaged in the North Korean repatriation project because he disliked being mocked by the Left for going to South Korea under a military dictatorship.

“North Korea is a Paradise on Earth.”

This was the catchphrase at the time, and many people believed it.

People who were expelled, purged, or left the Communist Party due to the party’s conversion from the 1950s Korean War armed struggle line formed the First Bund (Communist League) and fought the 1960 Anpo (Security Treaty) struggle, but the Red Army derived from the Second Bund hijacked a plane and defected to North Korea.

North Korea was also busily kidnapping Japanese people from the Sea of Japan side at the time, which is the later Abduction Issue.

It is famous that some of these abductees were made instructors for North Korean agents, and an agent raised by them caused the Korean Air bombing.

Well, in that sense, there are many Socialist countries in the world even now, including China, but they are mostly dictatorships with dictators.

It feels like this is a more universal law of history than Marxism, so thorough research, education, and enlightenment are necessary.

– Can’t we become a Communist Society without a Revolution?

On the other hand, a strange phenomenon occurs in the Western Liberal, Democratic, Capitalist camp.

We saw a phenomenon where mature capitalist countries incorporated welfare and such effectively, coming together nicely in a Communist-ish way, even if not Communism.

America is a land of carnage now, but during the period after WWII until it leaned toward Neoliberalism and post-Cold War Globalism, society developed in a balanced way, and even with inequality, it was a reasonably good society.

Baby Boomers who remember those good times in post-war America also become the central force of later Liberals.

During the Piketty boom, many might have seen graphs showing that the post-war era was an equal society.

Japan, surprisingly, became a more Communist country than Communist countries.

Japan was called “The Most Successful Socialist Country” and “A Nation of 100 Million Middle Class.”

“Wealth does not last three generations” was the Ministry of Finance’s policy, knocking great wealth down to commoner levels after three generations via inheritance tax.

Progressive taxation was strict, and salary differences did not become character differences.

Japan was capitalist and had a stock market, but since the Meiji era, it particularly disliked foreign capital (foreign investment).

There must have been an analysis of countries colonized by things like the Belt and Road Strategy.

The Edo Shogunate tried to lease Hokkaido to France, but the Meiji government crushed it.

It was good that Yoshinobu Tokugawa was a wise ruler.

Japan’s peculiarity is that it capitalized by itself.

Among Europe, only a few Western European countries or the US did this.

During the Russo-Japanese War, they were helped by Jewish loans, so they can’t sleep with their feet towards Jewish people.

Anyway, it is a country that grew by Loans, not foreign investment—selling bonds, borrowing money, paying it back, protecting credit, and growing.

This is actually the hope for countries other than the few Western European nations and the US.

If I were to list three of Japan’s achievements in world history:

1. Showing that a nation can develop independently without infringing sovereignty solely through loans rather than foreign capital.
2. Showing that one can win against Western military powers if they try hard.
3. Delivering convenient industrial products of scientific civilization to the world (not Konosuke Matsushita’s PHP, but in a sense) for anyone to use, homogenizing the world.

Japan achieved “something else” that was not Shareholder Capitalism through a special system called Cross-Shareholding.

It might be like the Sanpo-yoshi (Three-way satisfaction) of Omi merchants.

Since corporate groups hold each other’s shares, no specific shareholder controls the company.

Also, they don’t pay much dividends to shareholders.

Accounting was not market-value accounting.

The ones running the company are Worker-Presidents.

Most are internal promotions (proper), not professional managers or hired managers like today.

They worked hard not for shareholders, but for the company itself, for employees, and for the world.

By the way, old Japanese people all had a sense of being comrades who ate from the same pot in the army.

And pre-war Japan was also somewhat like socialism.

Cross-shareholding and the accounting system were forced to stop under US pressure during the Japan-US trade war and after the Cold War.

But in hindsight, it might have been good that they didn’t/couldn’t push Neoliberalism and Globalism (International Financial Capitalism) to the extreme like the US or Europe.

– The Disillusionment of Revolutionaries and the Rise (Birth?) of Liberals

For better or worse, everyone was “macho” until around 1970.

The Left was also working hard aiming for revolution to change the world and the nation from the roots.

Speaking of the Left, most are Socialists, Marxists, and Communists, but the inclusion relationship is something like:

Left Wing ⊃ Socialism ⊃ Marxism ⊇ Communism

Capitalism seems to have arisen spontaneously as the Catholic atmosphere weakened and Protestants and Jews came to the forefront of society, making financial matters less taboo.

Compared to that, Socialism feels Heroic or Subjectivist—in retrospect, artificial and Narrative-like.

In post-war liberal capitalist society, it can be seen as a battle between this “Left Wing ⊃ … ⊇ Communism” and everything else.

They were a generation that experienced war, so dualistic or decisive battle thinking might have been strong.

But naturally, straight Right Wingers advocating a return to pre-war times are a minority.

The New Right emerged, but it might have been a counter or a shadow of the New Left, trying to protect society from the disturbances and riots of the post-war Left.

Then there are realistic adults; they aren’t necessarily “ism-ists” but become ordinary conservatives. If they know reality and practical business, they can’t be saying unrealistic things like the student protest youth, the Left, the New Left, or their sympathizers. They must have been desperate to rebuild and grow Japan.

It sounds strange, but no matter how cocky the post-war youth got, the surrounding adults were people who had nearly died or killed on battlefields, so it might have felt like “It’s just right for young people to have some energy.”

If you really angered the adults, it wouldn’t be a matter of Geba sticks (wooden staves).

The Communist Party and New Left engaged in quite a bit of internal and external killing (Uchigeba/Soto-geba), but suppressing those making noise in the safe rear would have been easy if the war-surviving adults got serious.

There is an anecdote that Emperor Showa spoke about the Asama-Sanso incident in a tone caring for children, saying, “It was good that there were no deaths or serious injuries on either side.”

It was an era when the Left and Socialism were Justice and Truth, and if you weren’t a Socialist, you were said to lack a true heart.

The theory that “If you don’t have the spirit to be tinged with the Left when young, you have no promise” has been told since before the war.

Unlike Foucault, laws require force and apparatuses of violence to enforce them.

If the opponent breaks the law, a true strongman might say, “I’ll break it too, want to fight on the same level? Don’t underestimate me.” Weak people who realize they were dependent on the system when threatened are common.

Japan’s representative student movement, Zenkyoto, was crushed by the Communist Party before state power even came out.

In the first place, the USSR is no good, the JCP is no good, the New Left is no good, we are no good. Capitalism is going smoothly, and in Japan, a virtually classless, stratum-less society is almost realized. Means of production are shared via cross-shareholding. There is a sense of national unity called “Japan Inc.” and strong credit and compatriot consciousness. If the system is designed to accelerate economic equality to the point of destroying traditional culture, then maybe there’s no need for a revolution, and a Communist Society might be achievable. If so, revolutionaries might lose motivation.

Rather, the Left circles are strong in Heroism, Romanticism, and Sentimentalism, so they might have disliked the idea that the road to a Communist Society is to steadily and diligently perform practical work as a cog in society.

Leftists and Revolutionaries are often highly educated elites.

Highly educated elites, past and present, are often narcissistic, and many have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Such people convert to Liberals.

Liberals are Left Wing in the sense of social progressivism, and Socialist in the sense of egalitarianism, but they are likely the sentiment of people who lost their place in Marxism or Communism.

However, they can’t throw away Marxism or Communism, and when humans lose their place, if they can become anomie, they are still honest humans. But they tend to justify themselves, seek approval, or as the saying goes, “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” (a small man engaging in evil when idle), and start doing unnecessary things.

There is a saying that “Those who are not graceful or do not reflect are not human,” but it feels somewhat similar; they tend to depend on a direction that calms their mind.

Anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism were appealed by the New Left, so they are not unique to Liberals.

Liberals advance into fields that were mocked as Petit Bourgeois (Petty Bourgeois justice, Left-wing Infantile Disorder) by the Left and New Left (which largely overlaps with the Ultra-Left).

Directions like anti-discrimination, victimhood, protection of minority rights, environmental movements, anti-Japan, etc.

Thinking “If we just achieve the revolution, such small problems will be solved, so work hard for the revolution,” the Communist Party and Kakumaru-ha (which is Trotskyist and anti-Stalinist, unlike the JCP) who continue to work hard for the revolution are, in a way, admirable.

It requires caution because people who are proper “Hard Leftists” or Marxists and people who are Liberals or “Fake Leftists” might say similar things but have completely different contents. However, modern people tend to mix them up. Now, even among critics and experts, few might understand this difference when looking at Hard Leftists, Liberals, their critics, or the whole world.

As a result, everything looks the same, and it is interesting that reality seems to be moved by people who can’t distinguish them.

In a word, Hard Leftists (JCP, Kakumaru, putting Chukaku in too) use anti-Japan, anti-discrimination, minority issues, or environment theoretically, with a consistent logic, using them strategically and tactically as necessary means for revolution, consciously and subjectively.

On the other hand, Liberals are “Fluffy.”

It is vague, emotional, moody, sentimental, and sensitive.

As a result, they become anti-intellectual or fanatical, refusing to hear counterarguments like they are possessed by an ideology, but since there is no theory, it is not an ideology but an ideology-like feeling or atmosphere.

Is this Media Theory or Mass Society?

Many go to religion; in the second or third post-war new religion boom, some went to the Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Seicho-no-Ie, Happy Science, Shinnyo-en, existing religions, Naturalism, or Spiritualism.

Some people, like Ryu O. or Toshimasa T., seem to have gone to almost all of them.

– Why call it Liberal?

Liberal is short for Liberalism.

It translates to Jiyu-shugi.

It is easily imaged by recently popular terms like “Political Correctness,” “LGBT,” “BLM,” “SDGs,” “Feminism/Twitter Feminism,” and “Global Warming (recently toned down to Climate Change).”

It changes with the times.

• Classical Liberal (Old): “Government, don’t interfere. Give me individual economic freedom.”
• Modern Liberal (New): “Government, intervene. Protect the weak. Give me individual social justice.”

It is easy to understand if organized this way.

Modern ideals include Liberty, Equality, Human Rights, Fraternity, etc., from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, but Liberty and Equality are the two pillars.

Since they are ideals, this is Ideology.

Ideology is opposed to Realism.

Realism is somewhat compatible with Conservatives and the Right Wing.

Conservatives and the Right Wing have a track record because they advocate states that have been realized in the past.

It is easy to predict what will happen if we do what was done in the past again or continue it; there is a lot of data.

The Left is reformist and revolutionary.

They are reformists in the direction of creating a new state that has never existed, not reform to protect the past.

If this were restoration or conservative reactionism returning to the past, it would be a right-leaning ideology. But Enlightenment, Progressivism, Social Darwinism, Eugenics, or whatever—so-called innovation to create a new state that has not been realized yet—has no data or track record.

Unexpected things are more likely to happen.

The fact that the French Revolution and Russian Revolution didn’t settle down easily afterwards is related to this. Conversely, Japan’s Meiji Restoration and the English Civil War (Glorious Revolution) were retrospective restorations of monarchy, so the subsequent process settled down.

Liberalism, in the direction of Neoliberalism or economics, is the promotion of freedom.

Even if you say Liberal, there is the question of what to make liberal; there are target fields, and if you say freedom in all fields, freedoms will clash and collide.

Someone’s freedom becomes someone else’s unfreedom.

This is what is called Scarcity, Trade-off, and Opportunity Cost.

If someone’s freedom is someone else’s unfreedom, the thinking becomes to regulate someone’s freedom.

From one aspect, this is an ideology that reduces freedom, but since something else becomes free, it is called Liberal.

If the weak, victims, or minorities find it hard to live or are unfree, current Liberals think it is due to the freedom of the strong, perpetrators, or the majority.

Equality of Opportunity, i.e., guaranteeing legal and institutional freedom, creates disparity over time. The thinking becomes: try to protect those who lose from disparity; try to regulate the freedom of those who gain from disparity to make them free.

This can be said not to be Liberalism, but from the side that gains or reduces loss by being regulated, it can be called Liberalism in the sense that their freedom increases.

As a result, overall freedom is damaged, and institutions and situations become complex, but this becomes Liberal.

Freedom alone is hard enough (or maybe not good), but Freedom and Equality also fight.

Egalitarianism is not a very major word.

In a broad sense, Collectivism opposed to Individualism, Socialism, or Communism could be called Egalitarianism.

Socialism is a naive Egalitarianism without detailed conditions like Marxism.

Later it became identified with Marxism and confusing, but broad Socialism is Egalitarianism. Maybe because the word Socialism exists, Egalitarianism isn’t used.

Marxism and Communism are equalities with various conditions like “Economic” equality, “Sharing of means of production,” or “Eliminating classes (eliminating the distinction between Bourgeois and Proletariat).”

In contrast, broad Socialism is rough equality.

Depending on what is freedom or what is considered free, everyone might appeal to their own liberalism and fight. However, current Liberals seem to stand out most in the political field.

If one wants to talk about economic liberals, the tendency is to use other words like “Neoliberalism” instead of “Liberal.”

Equality also has Scarcity, Trade-off, and Opportunity Cost.

Someone’s equality becomes someone’s inequality.

Equality within a minority group might be inequality when considering the whole including those not in that group.

Conversely, if overall equality is guaranteed and someone loses because of it, that person might claim “It’s unequal.”

This also means what constitutes equality collides and fights depending on the position.

It’s hard enough with just Freedom or Equality alone, but trying to achieve Freedom and Equality simultaneously causes them to collide.

Rather than achieve, the expression “Maximize” would be more appropriate in an economic analogy.

If scarcity is low and there are plenty of resources, both freedom and equality can be greater.

If scarcity is high and resources are few, i.e., in a poor society, both freedom and equality tend to be restricted.

Freedom and Equality are often used mixed up.

The period when they started being used mixed up might be thought of as the period around 1968-1970 as a divider.

It might be the period when people abandoned, gave up on, became cynical about, or lost interest in revolution, causing Liberalism and Egalitarianism to start being used with crossed wires. To fill that gap, “Liberal,” which originally represents freedom, started being used to call Egalitarianism, making it confusing.

– The Fault Line of the Left: Marxism (Communism) and Liberalism are Independent Events

The word Liberal is a way of thinking that pursues not freedom, nor large equality for the whole society, but small equality for some people who feel life is hard.

In that sense, Marxism/Communism and Liberalism are both Egalitarianism and forms of Socialism.

However, fights occur between equalities depending on what equality.

Someone’s equality becomes someone’s inequality.

Overall equality might make minorities within it feel inequality, and equality for some minorities might create inequality that favors only that small group from the perspective of the whole.

Marx/Communism is a sect of Socialism with the thinking of eliminating classes, sharing means of production, and achieving economic freedom through revolution.

From the standpoint of spending all resources to realize a Communist Society through revolution, Liberalism, which can be called a small social reform movement, is trivial. And the Left and New Left likely had the consciousness that once a Communist Society is formed, inequality of small groups will disappear or can be easily dealt with.

However, even if society achieves equality in whatever sense, or even if a Communist Society is achieved, inequality of small groups within it might remain or newly arise subjectively and objectively.

There might be correlation or causality, but sometimes they should be treated as completely independent separate issues.

– Ultimately, the Subjective Problem is Important, plus Vested Interests, and Compromise with Realism

It leads to a blunt conclusion, but ultimately it is a Subjective Problem.

Also, a problem of Life (Livelihood).

Whether revolutionaries or the power side, it might not be an era where people do things out of a sense of mission like in the old days.

It’s the era, the age, and the generation.

Once child-rearing starts, you can’t talk about “isms”; you lose your own time and have to feed your children.

Therefore, Kakumaru-ha is supposed to be celibate.

Even if you talk about discrimination, there is no time to discriminate during war.

“Zainichi” (Koreans in Japan)—back then it was Japan, but I don’t think Taiwan and Korea were conscripted—but the heroes “Three Human Bombs” and Lieutenant General Hong Sa-ik were of Korean descent.

The meanings of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Human Rights, Patriotism, and Peace change between peaceful times and war/battlefields.

In front of winning against the enemy, not wanting to lose, the sense of unity fighting together, or patriotism, the ideal Ideas of humanity are less important than the sensibility, emotion, and judgment of the moment. The realism of the desk in the rear during peacetime or before the fire of war reaches is different from the realism of the front line.

Ultimately, the problem is whether it is comfortable for humans or can reduce discomfort, and that is ultimately a subjective problem.

Even saying subjective, it is difficult to be in a state of complete freedom or a “field of flowers” (head in the clouds), and the shape changes with the situation and conditions of the time.

Then, unlike when you can think calmly, it is difficult to distinguish Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Human Rights, and Patriotism, or sometimes there is no meaning in distinguishing them.

When people have time, they might think about unnecessary things or do creative/original things, but either way, the inside of the head becomes fluffy, so they can depart from realism.

In the first place, humans have to eat by something, so when it becomes peaceful, Liberalism becomes a business, and the power side also rots with nepotism and such.

It feels like there are many Business Leftists and Business Liberals.

Japan is no stranger to this; politics and media all seem to have a high degree of rot.

On the other hand, corruption and misgovernment are the essence of politics. A system without corruption is also special, and people with some tenure and experience in real society, professional life, or daily life understand to some extent that a society not moderately corrupt is a bit strange.

Liberals look half-hearted even from the view of the Left or New Left, and from the view of the Right, Conservatives, or Centrists, they seem to lack a core in both theory and reality. So various disturbances will probably continue to occur, but since the world doesn’t seem likely to stabilize for a while, they will probably go on evasively.

Finally, to summarize:

• Left Wing: A position trying to change society towards equality, expansion of rights, anti-privilege, etc., against Conservatives (Status Quo). Ranges from reform to revolution. Etymology is the seating arrangement in the French Revolution assembly.
• Socialism: An ideology where the state or society participates in production and distribution to suppress inequality and guarantee livelihood, rather than leaving it to the market. Forms vary, including state ownership, cooperatives, welfare states, etc.
• Marxism: A position analyzing capitalism as a structure of “class relations and exploitation” and viewing the contradictions of capitalism as moving history (Historical Materialism). Tried to explain Socialism/Communism “scientifically.”
• Communism: The final image (ideal) where classes disappear, means of production are not privately owned, and in principle, the state becomes unnecessary. In reality, “Communist Party States” often refer to one-party systems upholding this ideal, so the ideal and reality need to be distinguished.
• Liberal: Originally Liberalism emphasizing individual freedom, rights, and rule of law. However, “Liberal” in Japan is used closer to the US usage, meaning “Center-Left (leaning towards human rights, diversity, welfare).”
• Reason for Confusion: There was a long period where Socialism/Communism were included in the Left Wing, and furthermore, “Liberal” in Japanese circulated more as “Progressive” than “Liberalism,” making them easily treated as synonyms.

This is a realistic understanding.