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?

A Beginner’s Guide to the Left, Communism, Socialism, and “Liberalism” Learning the basics to understand how society works Justice and truth

A Beginner’s Guide to the Left, Communism, Socialism, and “Liberalism” Learning the basics to understand how society works Justice and truth For much of the modern era, socialism and communism were treated as truth and justice. That atmosphere may have lasted for something like a century. In a broad social sense, it might even be fair to say there was a kind of consensus that “socialism equals justice.” The essayist Natsuhiko Yamamoto, who wrote a long-running column in Bunshun, repeatedly used the phrase: “Socialism is justice.” That matches the mood of the time. So learning what people mean by socialism, communism, and “the Left” is useful not only as general education, but as a practical tool for understanding the world. If you don’t understand communism, you won’t really understand the world To put it bluntly, if you don’t understand what people call communism or the Left, you can’t properly understand society. It’s similar to how the world becomes hard to picture if you have no mental image of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or the Bible. You don’t need deep theology, but you do need a working “shape” in your mind. The ideas in this article are difficult, and not because the facts are hard to find. They’re difficult because the landscape is messy. Unlike mathematics, it isn’t clean and consistent. It’s full of contradictions; human emotions and desires bend arguments; political convenience reshapes theory. It’s a kind of chaos. To follow it, you often need to hold multiple competing “voices” in your head at once, as if several people are arguing inside a single mind. That’s part of the reason it’s exhausting. You can see this tendency in Japan’s postwar New Left movements, in the way the Chinese Communist Party keeps expanding, and even in the way political correctness can proliferate. So I’ll try to explain the basics as gently as possible. Is equality the most important value? The modern ideals that came out of the Enlightenment and the civic revolutions, including the French Revolution, are often summarized as “liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights (and patriotism).” Looking back, “human equality” may have been the key point. One direction is the abolition of status systems. Another is pushing toward economic equality by reducing material gaps. Equality can conflict with individualism and liberty. It tends to pull thought toward collectivism. “Communism” in English is communism, but if you translated the feeling rather than the official term, you might even say “communalism” or “collectivism” is closer to the flavor. At minimum, the goal is set, sometimes vaguely, sometimes clearly: the final destination is a society with no classes, where the distinction between Communist Party members and non-party proletarians disappears. That part is non-negotiable. So when we look at systems like the former Soviet Union or today’s China, we can say they are still “on the way,” not yet the final revolutionary goal. Historically, even the USSR and China themselves have often framed it that way. But the moment you say it this cleanly, you also feel why this field is not like math: it never stays clean. Still, if you want to understand communism, socialism, or the Left as an organized set of ideas, it matters to remember that there is one point that doesn’t easily wobble: the final aim is “classless equality.” Here, two problems appear. Problem 1: The final destination has no concrete picture The first problem is that the “end stage of history” is not concrete. People can gesture at it, but it remains misty. Perhaps research into anarchism tried to address this, but in practice, many movements invested far more energy in the direction and the struggle than in specifying the end-state in operational detail. There is often an assumption that the end point is “historically determined,” so it becomes less something to debate and more something to presuppose. Marx’s famous example is so-called “primitive communism”: in prehistoric times, humans allegedly shared the means of production and lived in relative equality. But modern society is not prehistoric society. If the destination is not “going back,” then you must build a different concrete model of shared production and classless equality suitable for a complex modern world. Or else you are, in effect, proposing to return to the primitive world. Problem 2: Even if the goal exists, the method is unclear The second problem is that the method of reaching a classless, equal society is unclear. Marx did propose a roadmap, but it remains vague in practice. Ideas alone don’t run a country. Implementation requires operations, institutions, and administrators. In the Marxist tradition, to make revolution possible inside a mature capitalist society, you need a disciplined vanguard to lead it. Later, this was called the Communist Party. The vanguard leads the proletariat and executes the revolution. Revolution, in this framework, typically involves violence. It’s treated as part of the “logic of history.” Today, many people treat any violence as absolutely unacceptable. But historically, that moral absolute is relatively recent. There are also parliamentary, gradual approaches: gaining power through elections and reforms and then moving society toward the final goal. But from a strict vanguard-party lens, that looks like heresy or weakness. The reasoning is: a state maintains order and defense through coercive force. If you want to destroy and replace the state, you may need an organized force capable of breaking the existing system. If a bloodless revolution succeeds, fine. But that is the “best-case scenario.” Movements also prepare for the worst case. Lenin’s method: a brilliant revolutionary, not necessarily a builder Lenin may deserve the title “great revolutionary,” or more precisely, Lenin and his surrounding group. But being good at revolution does not mean being good at building a workable post-revolution society. Some revolutionaries succeed at seizing power while having only a vague picture of the world they want to create. Mao Zedong is an example: he succeeded at revolution, partly by exploiting moments of national weakness and establishing one-party rule. But the attempt at building society afterward was disastrous. The Great Leap Forward failed. The Cultural Revolution is so confusing in purpose and execution that even now it remains hard to say what it was “trying” to do. If it was meant to abolish the Party and realize true proletarian ownership, it failed. If it wasn’t, then what was it? Either way, as social construction, it was a failure. Japan has its own examples of revolutionaries who were better at overthrow than at design. Saigō Takamori, for instance, imagined a kind of ideal moral order, the “age of Yao and Shun.” It’s interesting how both Marx and Saigō, in different ways, looked to ancient or primitive images when picturing ideals. What was impressive about Lenin’s group was operational competence. Many were highly educated elites, and they were strong at organization. They built a disciplined vanguard party and exploited the weakness created by World War I. But Russia, and later China (and in some ways Japan in earlier periods), did not resemble the “mature capitalist society” Marx had in mind. Leaping from semi-feudal conditions straight into a final egalitarian order is unrealistic. That’s one reason two-stage revolution theories emerged and why later conflicts multiplied. Socialism vs communism, Socialist Party vs Communist Party In a Marxist framing: Socialism is an intermediate stage in the transition out of capitalism. Communism is the completed final stage. But “socialism” is also a fuzzy umbrella term in ordinary language. It can mean anything from partial public ownership to strong redistribution, without necessarily requiring total abolition of private property. And terms shift across centuries and countries. Before World War I, many European countries had “socialist parties.” The war fractured international socialist solidarity, and the old alignment dissolved. “Communist Party” became a distinctive label after Lenin adopted it, borrowing the prestige of the final ideal (communism) for the vanguard organization that claims to lead society toward that end. There was also branding: replacing older socialist party identities, positioning Bolsheviks as the true inheritors. But “Communist Party” then changed meaning through Lenin and especially Stalin. In Europe, “social democratic” parties became the more common form for parliamentary, reformist left politics, combining welfare, equality, and compromise within electoral systems. Japan’s party landscape evolved differently. The terms “socialist,” “communist,” “social democratic,” and “liberal” don’t map neatly across Japan and Europe or across prewar and postwar usage. The Soviet dilemma: Stalin, Trotsky, and the “socialist trap” The Soviet Union began not as a mature capitalist society, but as something closer to a late-feudal autocracy. Even after reforms like emancipation of serfs, Russia was not instantly compatible with a modern capitalist system. It also had deep authoritarian traditions. So the early revolutionary project contained a contradiction: the Marxist story expects capitalism to mature before the leap, but Russia wasn’t there. If you insist on the historical sequence, you get the logic of staged revolution: first build a modern democratic-capitalist stage, then transition to socialism, then reach communism. But in the meantime, the vanguard party must lead, which creates a structure where the Party becomes a ruling elite and the non-Party masses become ruled. Once war, civil conflict, and external threats accumulate, that ruling structure hardens into a default. This is one version of what could be called “Soviet-type communism”: a system that admits it is not the final classless end-state, but treats one-party rule as necessary realism. Here lies a trap: the party can freeze history at the “party rules the masses” stage. The organization then grows, expands, and self-perpetuates, something like Parkinson’s law. Economic control can slide into rigid planned economies, with weak innovation, weak growth, and chronic stagnation. Political control can require suppression of factions and dissent, producing purges and internal violence. The result is catastrophic loss of talent, sometimes wiping out an entire generation of capable people. One sees echoes of this in Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and in Japan’s left history as well. Even stranger, when workers try to make a “true” leap toward direct control of production, the Party may treat it as a threat and suppress it. In that sense, a revolution “in the name of the proletariat” can become a machine that blocks the proletariat. Events like Hungary 1956 are often cited as examples of this dynamic. Trotsky’s conflict with Stalin is often summarized as “world revolution vs socialism in one country,” but it also reflects disagreement about stages, strategy, and what it means to “advance” toward the final goal. Stalin’s logic tends to prioritize defending the existing Soviet state and Party power. Anything that threatens the Party becomes an enemy, even if it claims to be “more revolutionary.” In that sense, the struggle becomes less class struggle than power struggle. Mao often looks similar: the system drifts away from the ideal and toward a new elite enjoying its position. A very brief history of socialism in Japan (as background) Japan imported socialism as part of importing modern Western ideas after the Meiji Restoration. There were famous incidents such as the High Treason Incident. Japan’s early communist movement formed, faced heavy repression, and fragmented internally. Even when organized parties were crushed, socialist and Marxist ideas continued to circulate widely. In some periods, socialist sympathies were common even among elites. Postwar, the sudden release of many political prisoners and the intense labor and political conflicts created conditions where socialist and communist ideas were unusually prominent. There were moments when mass action might have changed Japanese history had it unfolded differently. In the 1950s, international communist politics and the Korean War context drove internal conflicts within Japan’s communist movement and prompted strategic changes. This fed the rise of New Left movements, and the 1960s saw intense waves of protest and factional proliferation. Some groups disappeared through repression, internal collapse, or escalation into violence that provoked state crackdowns. Others survived by building durable organizational bases (labor, campuses, unions, etc.) and by adopting strategies that allowed long-term persistence. The 1970s turning point: when “revolution” lost plausibility By the 1970s, the prospect of violent revolution transforming Japan became less plausible to most people. Some groups continued, but many movements lost a clear “grand narrative.” When a movement loses its organizing end-goal, its energy can disperse into other channels. “Liberalism,” political correctness, and the shift to smaller narratives When the big story of “overthrow capitalism, establish communism, reach the classless end of history” weakens, a different style of politics can take its place. Instead of one enormous narrative, politics fragments into many smaller narratives: anti-discrimination, feminism, environmental protection, anti-war, anti-nuclear power, anti-government, anti-nationalism, and so on. In my reading, this can become a shift from a “grand narrative” toward a politics of grievance, victimhood, and constant policing of language and norms, where the main activity becomes finding violations, exposing them, and punishing them socially. This tendency doesn’t come only from former activists. If the older cultural atmosphere treated equality as moral truth, that moral grammar can spread far beyond organized movements and continue in new forms. If you want a psychological vocabulary, you can invoke Nietzsche: resentment, moralization, and the inversion of power. There is also a sociological angle: elite educational systems often produce people who seek recognition and status, sometimes compensating for inner insecurity. Under certain conditions this can slide into suspicion, paranoia, and a taste for control. Under criticism, it can become neurotic and defensive. All of this also sits on top of a century marked by trauma: poverty, war, harsh childhood conditions, and social instability. Generational differences matter. In Japan, cohorts that formed their personality before the defeat in 1945 differ from cohorts who were still young children at defeat. These differences shape how people relate to authority, guilt, ideology, and conflict. Equality and freedom: the central difficulty Equality is difficult because the question “equality of what?” never ends. If equality means absolute sameness, it becomes absurd. People occupy different positions in space and time, and those differences produce diverging futures. It’s easy to proclaim equality in the abstract. The moment you demand operational detail, you can split into multiple sects. Even the relationship between liberty and equality is complicated. They can coexist in idealized settings, but in ordinary life they often trade off. Why it started being called “liberal” In this messy landscape, many trends came to be labeled “liberal” for historical reasons. But older people can still remember the moral aura: pursuing “human equality” felt like truth and justice. That aura helped enable the modern language of political correctness. At the same time, political correctness is vulnerable in interesting ways. It can be weakened by empirical, practical thinking. It can also be weakened by people who simply refuse to play the game, saying things like “So what?” or “What’s wrong with that?” If the moral code isn’t accepted, the policing mechanism can collapse. In the past, societies often tried to “educate” or discipline such people. Today, that may be less common. The focus of equality can also expand beyond humans. In many countries, pets outnumber children. People bond with animals deeply. Debates about whales and dolphins, intelligence, and hunting norms rise and fall. In some areas, left-coded politics has also produced unintended harm, such as environmental policies that backfire. Collectivism and individualism The word communism carries the flavor of “the common,” the shared. Equality often leans toward collectivism. The opposing pole is individualism, which often aligns with liberty. One possible future path is this: if individuals become genuinely strong, confident, and independent, then diversity becomes natural, and the machinery of “discrimination codes” becomes harder to sustain. A society of confident individuals might produce a kind of equality not by sameness, but by resilience. This is easier to imagine in prosperous, advanced societies than in poorer, harsher eras. But historically, perhaps certain aristocrats, samurai, or clergy achieved something like it within their own circles. In that sense, a freedom-centered path to equality might be both realistic and compatible with contemporary philosophy.

世の中や世間を知るための左翼、共産主義、社会主義、リベラル入門

世の中や世間を知るための左翼、共産主義、社会主義、リベラル入門 ・正義と真理 　社会主義や共産主義は真理で正義でした。 　その状況は100年くらいは続いていたと思われます。 　これは立場に関係なく社会的な広いコンセンサスだったと言えるかもしれません。 　「社会主義は正義」というのは文春で長い間エッセイを連載し続けていたエッセイストの山本夏彦が口癖のように繰り返し書いていた言葉です。 　まさにその通りだと思います。 　というわけで社会主義なり共産主義なり左翼なりを知るのはいろいろ勉強や教養になりますし役にも立ちます。 ・共産主義が分からないと実は世の中分からない 　誤解を恐れず言えば共産主義とか左翼とか言われるものが分からないと世の中分かりません。 　これはある程度聖書やキリスト教やイスラム教やユダヤ教の知識と言わないまでもイメージがついてないと世の中がイメージしにくいのと一緒です。 　これらの心理と正義をつかさどる宗教と同じように分かるのは難しいのでイメージだけでもしておければいいと思います。 　何かわからない時にここで解説する知識やイメージがあれば合点がいく時もあると思います。 　共産党やら左翼やら社会党やらリベラル系の関係者すらよく分かってない人が多いのではないでしょうか。 　あまりに難しいという以前にややこしいし人文科学的というか数学みたいにすっきり筋が通っているわけでもなく矛盾だらけだったり人間の感情や欲望が論旨に影響したり政治的な都合が働いたりしてカオスみたいなところがあり、知識を得るのは簡単ですがすっきり生理はできません。 　まさに思考の分派とか競争を繰り返し続けていくような感じで頭の中に複数に複数の人がいるような処理の仕方が必要になり厄介なことこの上ないです。 　これは日本の70年前での新左翼運動もそうですし中国の共産党がどんどん肥大化していっているのもそうですしポリコレがどんどん増殖していくのも一緒です。 　非常に全容を知るのも理論化するのも大変なのですがもともと左翼系の指導者たちは頭がいいというか学歴エリートも多いのでだからこそ競争とか論争が活発ですし勝ち残るためにマウントも取らなくてはいけなくてそれがまた思考と感情や意志や欲求を切り離すということを阻んだりして一見して裏も表もある海千山千のきれいごとばかりも言っていられない理想主義と現実主義を使い分ける政治的な、ステートマンというよりは政治屋的なポリティシャン的な感じになってしまいます。 　というわけでなるべく優しく解説してみます。 ・人間は平等が一番大切？ 　近代の理念は啓蒙思想や市民革命、フランス革命などの「自由、平等、博愛、人権、（愛国）」などでしょう。 　「人間の平等」振り返ってみれば一番のキーポイントだったかもしれません。 　1つの方向性は身分制度の撤廃などです。 　また経済的格差をなくす方向にふるのもありでしょう。 　平等は時に個人主義や自由とは対立的になります。 　集団主義的になります。 　共産主義を英語では「communism」と書きますが共産主義と訳すのではなく直訳して集団主義の方がいいかもしれません。 　とりあえず平等の目標はなんとなくでもあり明確でもありと設定はされています。 　人間の最終ゴールは階級がなくなるので共産党も非共産党員のプロレタリアートもなくなった状態です。 　ここは揺るぎません。 　ですから旧ソ連や現在の中国のような共産主義体制はまだ革命というか社会変革の道半ばで真の革命が達成されていない状態です。 　これは中国も旧ソ連も認めるところでした。 　しかしこう言い切ってしまっていいのかわからないのが数学や理系のようにすっきりいかないところです。 　ただ目標ははっきりしているという事は多分共産主義やら社会主義やら左翼をきちんと理解するのに大切ですし、ここだけがぶれない点ですのである程度まとまった思考や議論をしたい場合には覚えておくべきポイントだと思います。 　ここで2つ問題があります。 ・1つ目の問題歴史の終着点階級のない平等な社会の具体性がない 　1つ目の問題はこの歴史の最終段階である平等の状態に具体性がないことです。 　それがどんなものかむにゃむにゃした感じにしか分かりません。 　無政府主義の研究がそれだったのかもしれませんがどちらかというの最終段階が実際にどのようなものかよりかは最終状態の具体性がなくてもそこに至る方向に思考も行動もほとんどのリソースを注いできたと見るのが分かりやすいでしょう。 　最後の階級も国家も共産党もない状態は歴史的に決まっているのを受け入れているというのか、それはあまり議論せず結論ありきでやってきた面があります。 　一応マルクスが出した例は原始共産制という例で原始時代には人間は生産手段も共有していて平等だったというものでした。 　ただ現代は原始時代ではないので原始共産制とは違う生産手段も共有して階級もない人間の平等の別の具体的な方法を模索しないといけません。 　あるいは原始時代に戻してしまうかです。 ・2つ目の問題：最終的な平等な社会があってもそこに至る方法がハッキリしない 　2つ目の問題は歴史的に定まっている人間が平等になっている社会を達成する具体的な方法がハッキリしないことです。 　はっきりしないというかある程度マルクスは具体的な方法を提示しました。 　ただそれでもあいまいです。 　あいまいですし具体性が足りません。 　マルクスは思想家ですが思想だけでは世の中どもならず実装させて機能させるには実務と実務家が大切です。 　まず成熟した資本主義社会の中で革命を起こすにはまずは革命の前衛になる革命を指導する前衛党が必要だと考えて、のちにこれは共産党と呼ばれるようになりました。 　ここがプロレタリアートという大衆を率いて革命を実践します。 　革命には暴力が伴いますがこれは歴史な節理のようなものです。 　最近は暴力なら何でもダメ、テロリズムなら何でもダメ見たいな感じになっていますがそれは比較的最近の事です。 　議会を通じて穏便に人類の最終到達地点である平等で階級がなく生産手段も共有という考え方もありますがこれは前衛党としての在り方ではないという事でメジャーにはならないというか異端視されました。 　やはり戦争とか犯罪を防ぐために防衛とか治安を担うために強制力としての暴力装置である国家と同じく体制を変えるには暴力的に体制を破壊する革命を行う暴力装置としての前衛党やら革命の実行部隊の軍事組織が必要という事で準備しておくことになります。 　別に無血革命や結果として暴力が要らなければそれはそれでよいのでしょうがそれはうまくいった場合の都合のいい考え方ですからうまくいかない場合の都合が悪い場合の準備も必要でしょう。 ・レーニンの革命家手法 　レーニンは名革命家と言えるかもしれません。 　厳密にはレーニンと彼の周辺にいたグループです。 　ただ名革命家必ずしも革命後の社会をうまく作れるとも限りません。 　そもそも革命だけは得意だけども革命した後の具体像をはっきり持っていない名革命家もいます。 　毛沢東も革命を成功させるのは国力が衰えているタイミングで革命起こして共産党による一党支配をできたので優れていますが、革命後の具体的な社会づくりはだめでした。 　大躍進政策もダメですしプロレタリアート文化大革命に至っては何がしたかったかわかりません。 　共産党をなくして真のプロレタリアートによる生産手段共有と階級をなくすつもりでやったのかそうでなかったのかがよく分かりません。 　いとも結果もダメだったので革命後の社会づくりでは失敗と評価できるでしょう。 　日本では西郷隆盛などがそうでしょう。 　西郷は堯舜（ぎょうしゅん）の世みたいなものをイメージしていました。 　マルクスにせよ西郷にせよ大昔に理想社会を見るのは面白いところです。 　レーニングループのすごいところは実務がしっかりしていたことです。 　こういうのはやはり学歴エリートが多いので優れています。 　前衛党の組織化をきちんとしたところが素晴らしいです。 　第一次世界大戦の国力低下のスキを突いたのもいいでしょう。 　ただロシアとか中国とかのちの日本もそうですが資本主義社会が成熟していたとはとても言えないところがあります。 　そこから一気に人類の歴史の最終形態である平等社会に飛躍するのは無理です。 　ですから二段階革命論みたいなのも出てきますし、後々までいろいろともめることになります。 ・社会主義と共産主義、社会党と共産党 　マルクス的に言えば社会主義は資本主義の移行過程で共産主義は完成形態です。 　またもともと社会主義というのはふわっとした概念です。 　生産手段の共有化などは言いますが私有財産の否定とかまではあいまいです。 　あと社会主義と共産主義、社会党と共産党関係にも注意が必要です。 　さらには現代と19世紀では使い方が違ったりします。 　かつ日本と世界でも使い方が違ったりします。 　第一次世界大戦以前は社会党というのはありましたが第一次世界大戦で各国が対立して胡散霧消してしまいました。 　共産党という名前を初めてつけたのはレーニンです。 　これはマルクス主義の前衛党に対して理想で完成形の社会である共産主義の名前を頂いたのでしょう。 　社会党という名前も社会主義を目指しているという意味で社会党とつけているのでまあ同じです。 　従来の社会党への反発とブランディングの意味もあって自分の党のボルシェビキをソ連共産党に変えました。 　でも共産党はレーニン、スターリンの文脈の中で意味が変わってしまいました。 　以後はヨーロッパでは社会党より社会民主党というのを使う感じでこれは社会主義とか共産主義というより議会内部でより集団主義的というか福祉やら平等やらを目指すような折衷主義的な流れとなります。 　日本の社会党はちょっと別です。 　社会党→民進党→民主党→立憲民主党になって今に至ります。 　社民党は社会党の後継者のようでいて党員をごっそりいまの立件民主党に持っていかれたので有名無実になってしまいました。 　国民民主党は民主党でも比較的民社党系の流れをひいたグループです。 　欧米では第一次世界大戦で社会党の権威が失墜したので以降は社会民主党か共産党かどちらかのイメージです。 ・ソ連の困難：スターリンとトロツキー 　ソ連はそもそも帝政ロシアの段階で資本主義ではなく農奴制です。 　農奴解放とかしましたがすぐに成熟した資本主義になれるわけでもありません。 　そもそも権威主義で専制主義なので資本主義と相性が悪い面もあります。 　というわけで革命当初のロシアはそもそも資本主義とか市民革命後の近代社会というよりは封建制的な国です。 　そういう場合はレーニン的に言えば前衛党が指導して国を成熟した資本主義にするための民主主義革命を行って、それで成熟した資本主義体制にしたら社会主義革命を起こして最終目標の階級もなく平等で生産手段をプロレタリアートで教習するような無政府で個人主義的な要素がありつつも集団で調和も取れた理想社会が歴史の終わりとして完成するわけです。 　ただ最終段階に至るまでは前衛党である共産党のエリート集団がプロレタリアートたちを引っ張らないといけません。 　この段階では国は支配階級で共産党員でエリートのノーメンクラートと被支配階級で非共産党員のプロレタリアートに分かれます。 　革命後のいろいろな混乱や内戦や逆境や第二次世界大戦もありこの体制がデフォルトになってしまいました。 　これをソ連型共産主義と言います。 　これは完成した人間平等の社会で歴史の終わりである共産主義社会ではないとは認める物の現実路線としてはこれしか仕方がないからかスターリンみたいな人が権力を握った為かそういう風になりました。 　というか社会主義の罠みたいなのがここにあって共産党が一党独裁になってプロレタリアートと支配したところで止まってしまう場合があります。 　党の方はどんどん増殖拡大していくのでいわゆるパーキンソンの法則というやつでしょうか。 　あと自由な資本移動というか交換至上主義経済のような民衆的自由主義な資本主義化を進めず計画統制経済のようになるせいかはたまた自由なイノベーションや経済成長を軽視あるいは認めないせいか万年不景気のような状況に陥りがちです。 　とすると静寂した資本主義にはならないので共産党一党独裁の権威主義の持続で何も変わらない停滞した社会になりがちです。 　また共産党の一党独裁を保つためか分派や多様な意見を認めないためか粛清とかリンチ内ゲバが起こりがちです。 　そうするとスターリンの粛清も毛沢東の文化大革命も日本共産党の六全協後の粛清や真日和見主義事件もそうですが大量の有能な人材がひと世代くらいまるっときれいに消えてしまったりします。 　また労働者が本当の社会主義革命を起こして労働者が生産手段を所有する共産主義化を起こす最終革命を起こそうとすると共産党が邪魔をする本末転倒というかよく分からない行動を共産党がとったりします。 　ハンガリー動乱や文化大革命が例に挙げられるでしょう。 　トロツキーとスターリンの対立も一つはこの点にあります。 　一国革命論で国内を固めるか世界革命で世界各国で共産主義国を増やす路線の対立が目立ちがちですが、社会主義の進展段階の見解に対する違いがあります。 　スターリン路線だとまずソ連の共産化を固めて防衛しようとする思考になるので共産党を脅かす活動は何であれ、それが真の社会主義革命であれソ連を脅かすものになり敵対対象になります。 　スターリンは階級闘争ではなく権力闘争で毛沢東もそういう感じで結局真の共産主義社会を作るのではなく共産主義を作る過程の共産党一党独裁と資本主義化というか古い封建制やら絶対王政やらなどの社会秩序を壊した後の特権階級のうまみにおぼれて固定どころか階級格差を増大させてしまうという何というか人間やら社会の弱点にかてずに違う方向に行ってしまったのでしょう。 　スターリンとトロツキーの違いはやはり革命段階というか社会主義段階の評価にあります。 　ソ連が歴史的に社会がどの段階にいるのか、中国はどうなのか、日本はどうなのかというのがマルクス主義というかマルクス型共産主義・社会主義では大きな問題になります。 　その社会が歴史的にどの段階にいるのかでやることが変わってきます。 　成熟した資本主義ならプロレタリアによる革命一発で共産主義状態に出来る可能性があるかもしれません。 　そもそも帝政ロシアも清朝や中華民国期の中国も大正や昭和初期の日本も社会がどの段階にあるのかでもめました。 　日本の戦前の共産党では講座派と労農派に分かれていました。 　トロツキーとスターリンの対立は世界革命論と一国革命論だけでなくソ連、場合によってのソ連以外の社会の発展段階とか革命段階とかの評価に違いと対立があったものと思われます。 　結局スターリンが勝ってトロツキーは亡命しますがトロツキーの影響を受けたのが革命的共産主義者同盟革命主義マルクス派のカリスマ指導者黒田寛一です。 　日本で事実上機能している共産主義組織は核マル派、中核派、共産党の3つしかないのでこの3つは覚えておきましょう。 　このうち核マル派と中核派は同じ革命的共産主義者同盟から派生しています。 　もうちょっというと日本共産党は1955年の六全協というのでそれまでのソ連のコミュンフォルムの指示で朝鮮戦争の1950年から1955年まで日本各地で武装闘争を実際行っていて警官を含めて死傷者が出たり山村工作隊など若者を使って地方活動を行ったりしていました。 　この時山村工作隊を指導していたのが網野義彦でのちに日本の歴史学を変えるスター選手になった人物です。 　自分はこの人物を病跡学会というところで発表したことがあります。 　この時期共産党は国際派と所感派というのに分かれて逃走していたのですが1955年の六全協で国際派の宮本賢次が実験を握るようになりソ連や中国共産党から距離を取り独自路線を取ること、武装革命路線を縮小し敵の出方戦術というのを除いて武装や党内の軍事組織を基本は持たず議会で勢力を広げていく方向に転換します。 　この時に切り捨てられた人々の中に網野義彦がいたわけです。 　そういう感じで日本の思想史を見ると共産主義とか左翼とかと関係ないところで耳にすることが多い有名人がゴロゴロ出てきますがそれだけ日本社会というか国際社会、世界全体が人類の平等をうたう社会主義こそ正義で真理で絶対という考えが強く、そこに参加して活動したり共鳴して日に影に支援する人々が多かったりすることが分かります。 　日本共産党設立は1921年の大正10年で国際共産党であるロシア共産党のコミンテルンの後押しや影響を大きく受けていました。 　別にそれまで日本に社会主義運動がなかったというのではなく戦前から日本はまっかっかでした。 　東大経済学部は東大法学部からマルクス主義経済学を研究するためにできた学部です。 　社会主義（共産主義）は正義で真理で絶対で社会主義者じゃないと真心がないくらいに社会全体で思われていました。 　人間の完全な平等というのはやはり素晴らしい理想なのでしょう。 　右派や保守派ですらその心情は理解していた面があったと思われます。 　若いころに社会主義に傾倒しないような奴は気概がなく見どころがない、くらいに思われていたところがあります。 　イタリアやドイツのファシズムも社会主義からの分岐です。 　ナチスの正式名称は国家社会主義ドイツ労働者党でマルクス主義の系譜ではないかもしれませんが影響は普通に受けています。 　ムッソリーニも若い時は社会主義者かなんかだったと記憶しています。 　日本も15年戦争中は天皇以外は平等が徹底化される傾向で大東亜戦争などでは大名の子孫みたいな人たちも普通に兵隊（将校ではなく）で戦場に行っています。 　まあともかくマルクス・レーニン・スターリンの流れは本来の共産主義を目指す流れから外れてしまってむしろハンガリー動乱のように共産主義実現のための労働者の真の革命を疎外したり邪魔するというのを的確に見抜いたのはトロツキーだけではなく先ほども挙げた黒田寛一のような人物もいますし彼のの属していた核マル派や中核派も黒田寛一のトロツキーの考え方に共鳴した人たちが作った党派ですので日本で現在実質的に機能しているマルクス主義団体3つのうち共産党はマルクス・レーニン主義ですが、残る核マル派と中核派はトロツキー主義で共産主義・社会主義・マルクス主義の観点から言えばこちらの方が正当な系譜と言えるかもしれません。 　共産党もソ連共産党や中国共産党から距離を取る独自路線で動いてはいますが、敵の出方戦術以外の暴力革命は原則綱領でも認めないように現在はなっているのでかなり本来の暴力で革命を起こすというマルクス主義の本来の流れからは外れているところがあります。 　他方で敵の出方、すなわち状況によっては暴力はありなので例えば日本が戦争に巻き込まれて社会が混乱したような場合には状況によっては暴力革命を起こすかもしれないので公安の監視対象からは外れていません。 　一応言っておくと暴力は悪いものではないというと語弊があるのかもしれませんが暴力やテロリズムが絶対の悪であって理由の如何に関わらずダメとなったのは比較的最近の考え方です。 　戦後の世界的な新左翼や時に共産党を中心とするいろいろなテロリズムでテロに屈服するのはだめみたいなのが徐々に高まり、アメリカの911事件でテロリズム絶対悪論になります。 　他方で戦争という暴力はありでイラクに大量破壊兵器を作っているという冤罪を知っていながら吹っ掛けてイラク戦争を行っていますので暴力は絶対悪とはされていませんが、市民社会レベルの民事の問題では暴力は絶対悪という風潮は高まっていると言えるでしょう。 ・簡単な日本の社会主義史 　日本では明治維新後西洋の文物を取り入れたので当然社会主義も輸入しています。 　有名な事件では大逆事件が挙げられます。 　この時この事件の影響で和歌山を離れて東京に移住したのがこれまた私が病積学会で発表したことのある山本七平の一家でした。 　1921年大正10年に日本共産党ができて1930年代後半には人民先生事件やら内ゲバやリンチ殺人で事件を起こし弾圧されすぐ消滅してしまいました。 　この時の共産党は講座派と労農派というのに分かれていました。 講座派と労農派では、講座派は『日本資本主義発達史講座』を軸に「資本主義は成熟し革命が近い」と主張、労農派は山川均・荒畑寒村らが中心で「日本はまだブルジョア革命段階にあり、段階的発展が必要」と主張し、「資本主義論争」を展開しました 　共産党はつぶれましたが共産主義とか社会主義とかマルクス主義は表立って活動しなければ普通に活発で近衛文麿のような国の指導者レベルでも社会主義的な人は大勢いました。 　戦前で大切なのは32年テーゼというコミンテルンの綱領でこれを契機に反日思想や自虐史観が生まれたことと天皇制否定があります。 　これはソ連の私怨も混じっているだろうと言われていてやはり日露戦争で負けた屈辱やらシベリア出兵やら満州での権益やらソ連と日本が対立しまくっていたのもあるでしょう。 　天皇制という言葉はこの時つくられたという説がありますが人類の平等をうたう共産主義の実現段階においては天皇という特別な存在がいたら困るという事です。 　戦争中共産主義者は政治犯として、あるいは内ゲバリンチの傷害致死罪の普通の囚人として牢屋に入っていた人が多かったです。 　私の親戚にも牢屋に入っていた人がいて戦後に岩波に拾われて哲学辞典を編纂しています。 　戦後GHQがまとめて共産主義者を出所させたのですが早速党再建やいろんな活動を開始し1947年（昭和22年）2月1日には「2.1ゼネスト」と言われるものを日本共産党主導の労働組合が計画しました。 吉田茂政権打倒と民主人民政府樹立を目指した全国一斉のゼネラル・ストライキ（ゼネスト）計画で官公庁や民間含む最大600万人が参加予定でしたが直前にマッカーサー（GHQ）の指令で中止に追い込まれ、戦後日本の労働運動に大きな影響を与えた幻のストライキで実行されていたら社会は大混乱に陥り日本史が変わっていたかもしれません。 この時共産主義活動から離れたのが読売新聞のナベツネや日本テレビの氏家です。 ・1950年代の日本共産党の転帰 　1950年のソ連からの干渉により共産党内で分裂と闘争が始まりました。 　一言でいえば朝鮮戦争中に日本国内で武装蜂起し後方かく乱を行えという指令です 日本共産党では平和路線で行きたいという考えもあったのですがそれはだめで日本国内で騒擾を起こせるために日本共産党を利用しようとしました。 事の経緯は1950年にコミンフォルムが機関紙『恒久平和と人民民主主義のために！』に「日本の情勢について」と題する論文（論評）を掲載し日本批判を行いました。 批判の内容は当時の日本共産党が掲げていた「平和的かつ民主主義的な方法」による革命路線（野坂参三の「愛国主義的見解」など）を「反米的でなく、反日本的」などと厳しく批判し、ソ連や中国流の武装闘争路線への転換を促すものでした。 このコミンフォルムからの介入（干渉）により、日本共産党は「所感派」（徳田球一、野坂参三ら指導部多数）と「国際派」（春日庄次郎ら）に分裂し、激しい対立と混乱が数年間続くことになりました（五十年問題）。 1955年の六全協で宮本顕治が主導権を取り実働部隊の人々を切り離したり飼い殺しにしました。 よく55年体制という言葉を聞くと思いますがこれは1955年に自由民主党ができたこと、1955年に社会党ができたこと、1955年に共産党の現在の体制ができたことの3つに由来すると言ってもいいでしょう。 さらには1956年のスターリン批判でソ連自身が間違っていたと言ってしまいました。 さらにはハンガリー動乱で労働者が自ら生産手段を共有し真に格差のない社会を作ろうとしたときにソ連がそれに軍をおくり妨害し大量の死傷者を出しました。 というわけで日本共産党を前衛党と認めない考え方が拡大し新左翼運動が巻き起こりました。 こうした運動は世界的にありましたが日本も協力で1960年安保では数十万とか数百万の国民が国会を包囲したりと運動の広がりと強さを見せました。 安保法案が通ってしまったため運動は失敗とみなされ新左翼運動はますます盛んになりました。 色々な共産党以外の勢力が生まれて5流13派とか23派とか24派とか言われます。 この中で現在実質的に生き残っているのが核マル派と中核派です。 有名なものでは日本赤軍や連合赤軍は内ゲバリンチの山荘ベース事件やあさま山荘事件、よど号ハイジャックやテルアビブの空港での銃乱射事件で有名です。 そしてそういう党派ではなく学生運動としての横のつながりで学生運動の全共闘が有名です。 だいたい60年代はいろいろ労働組合活動やら成田闘争やら学園紛争やら党派セクト間での武装闘争やら日本に限らず世界中非常に騒然とした時代でした。 党派同士でなぜ闘争したのかというと共産党が革命の前衛党としての権威が落ちて次の前衛党を決めなければいけないという事で我こそはという感じで前衛党を巡っての争いが繰り広げられた感じです。 資本主義を打破するためには議会を通してという考え方もあったようですが投票で共産主義体制に移行するのも難しいです。 あるいは議会で勢力を拡大して徐々に改革を積み重ねて最終的に共産主義に至るというのもありで現在の日本共産党や社民党や立憲民主党や国民民主党の左派や令和新撰組はそういう路線かもしれません。 　他方でそういう路線でなく暴力がないと革命はなせないという考え方もあります。 　ドストエフスキーの罪と罰や悪霊やカラマーゾフの兄弟の未完の部分はそういうのをテーマにしていたようです。 　ちなみにドストエフスキーも活動家の集まりで捕まり国家反逆罪で死刑にされかけ生涯ロシア帝国の監視がついていたと思われます。 　マルクス自身も基本は暴力革命を想定したようです。 　前にも書いたかもしれませんが治安や防衛を支えるのは最後には暴力に頼る国家であるのは現在も昔も変わりません。 　それに今の日本はあまり暴力は見かけませんが若い日でも祖父母世代はゲバ棒振っていたり曾祖父世代は普通に戦争に行っていたりしていた世代です。 　全共闘がゲバ棒振って機動隊と唱導したり内ゲバで騒いでいたとしても周りの大人は戦中派、戦前は徴兵経験も戦場経験もある大人たちだったので子供の若気の至りと暖かい目で見守っていたのかもしれません。 　共産党も1955年の非暴力路線を敷いた後も先ほど言及の「敵の出方論」という暴力の選択肢を残したほかに全共闘に東大などの共産党の基盤であった大学が乗っ取られそうになったので都学連行動隊（通称あかつき行動隊）という非公然の武力軍事組織を使って新左翼たち相手に東大を守り抜いた経緯があります。 　この組織は全共闘が沈静化した後に新日和見主義事件というもので粛清されてしまいましたので現在はありません。 　粛清と言っても殺すというわけではなく狭い所に押し込んで光を当てて寝かせず繰り返し査問と自己批判の種類を書かせ続けたみたいな精神攻撃ですので肉体的暴力ではありません。 　ここで一世代潰してしまったので日本共産党は不破書記長と志位書記長の間の指導者の世代にぽっかり穴が開いてしまいました。 ・1970年代のターニングポイント 　5派23派とか書きましたがこの中で残っているのは中核派と革マル派くらいです。 　共産党はただの左翼なので新左翼でも極左でもありません。 　まだ釜ヶ崎や山野を拠点にしている社会党系の革労協とか小さな党派も生き残っているようですが弱小少数勢力です。 　お互い潰し合ったり過激すぎてテロにはしって公権力につぶされたりもともと組織力がなくて霧散したりと今では2派しか残っていません（細かいのを除いて、また変質して別の組織になったものを除いて）。 　そもそも活動家にも生活があるので職場も必要です。 　また活動の場も必要です。 　また軍事組織も必要です。 　また組織化がしっかりしていないと残れません。 　そういった条件がうまくかみ合って残ったのがこの2派です。 　基本的に職や活動の場として公務員や民間企業の労働組合、大学などがあります。 　労働組合は現在の連合が統括している各種労働組合組織で公務員系の総評、民間企業の同盟系があります。 　今はどちらも連合に統合されています。 　「昔陸軍、今総評」などの言葉が昔は普通に使われていましたが今の人は聞いたことがないかもしれません。 　「巨人、大鵬、卵焼き」とか「平家、海軍、国際派」とかどどいつみたいな言葉が昔はよく使われました。 　国鉄が民営化したり郵政も民営化したりしましたが今でも日教組や自治労は有名な左翼団体です。 　国鉄労組はなくなりましたがJR労連は現在も革マル派の基盤です。 　東大病院占拠も東大選挙も失敗して新左翼運動とか学生運動とかは下火になっていき暴力による革命による社会主義化やら共産主義化が現実味がなくなってきてしまいました。 　今でも真面目にそれを実践しているのは中核派と革マル派くらいです。 　中核派は結構表に積極的に出て目立つ側面がありますが、革マル派は徹底的な地下戦術ですので目立ちません。　 　中核派と何らかの関係があった政治家は知られている人もいますが革マル派と関係があることが一般に知られている政治家はあまりいないでしょう。 　新左翼活動が下火になると左翼的な思想を持つ人のよりどころも目的も分からなくなってしまいました。 　共産党はよく分からない議会主義の平和な共産主義を目指すというのは社会民主主義と紛らわしいし、日本にはもう一つ分かりにくい社会党というものもあります。 社会党というのは前述のように第一次世界大戦より前にはそれこそ前衛党の意味でヨーロッパ各国にありましたが名前は同じでも1955年体制の日本の社会党はそれとはちょっと違うものです。 マルクス主義者もいますが社会民主主義者もいてその他の社会主義っぽいというか副詞主義っぽい考え方の人や修正資本主義の人、そのた多様な考え方を持っていていくつかの労組を支持基盤としてなるごった煮政党みたいなものです。 昔は民社党というものもありこれは同盟系の労働組合を基盤としつつ普通に現状肯定的なグループで自民党とともに保守的とも言えますが今はなくなりました。 　1970年代以降、三菱重工本社爆破事件などを行ったり国際テロに加担するグループなど断片的な出来事は起こりましたが日本を共産主義化するというのからは目的が離れていく、とも言えますしもっとはっきり言えば目的がなくなってしまいました。 ・リベラル、ポリコレの起源 　目的も組織もなくなれば人間アノミー状態になる場合がありますがアノミーになるのではなくどういう心理機制か分かりませんが活動方向が反差別やフェミニズムや環境保護や反戦や反原発や反政府、反日本や自然主義や新興宗教の方向に変わっていきました。 　「革命闘争で資本主義政府を内倒し共産主義という『全ての人間が平等で生産手段を共有し階級のない共産主義社会』を実現する」という大きな物語、ナラティブの終了で変わりに被害者物語、恨みのナラティブ、反愛国ポルノ的な小さな物語に拡散されて行きます。 　『全ての人間が平等で生産手段を共有し階級のない共産主義社会』という大きな目的を男らしくマッチョイムズ、男尊主義、ニーチェの超人思想や権力の意志で戦って勝ち取るという感じからルサンチマンや恨み僻み嫉みなどの嫉妬や被害者ぶりや被害者意識、そういうのをパトロールして見つけて摘発してつるし上げるような小さな物語を人々は抱えるようになります。 　これは元活動家だけではなく社会主義は正義で真理で絶対みたいな感覚は多かれ少なかれみんなが持っていた感覚だったので左翼活動と関係のない人々にも多かれ少なかれ浸透し共有されて行きます。 　心理的な説明が必要であればニーチェの哲学でもいいかもしれませんし、左翼かつ装荷には学歴エリートが多かったのですが学歴エリートというものは中国の科挙制でも近代の官僚制でも自己愛的というか真に自分に自信はないが承認欲求や自己効力感を無意識に求める、競争で自分より上な相手には媚びて下な相手には小官吏的に夜郎自大、場合によっては下種下郎的に威張るみたいなパーソナリティーを持ちがちです。 　状況が許せばそういうタイプの人は猜疑性/妄想性/パラノイドパーソナリティになり独裁者のようになります。 　しかし自分に真の自信はないので非難や否定には弱く自分で自分の欠点や過ちを客観的に正視できずに神経症的、ヒステリー的になることもあります。 　そもそも現代日本と比べれば、日本に限らず世界的にそうですが人々が巨大なトラウマを抱えていた時代です。 　幼少期の体験も現在より逆境的に育った人が多いですし、貧乏な時代で貧乏はいろいろな精神的災厄を生みますし、戦争の時代だったので戦争経験を持った人しかいない時代でした。 　そういった中で団塊世代は「戦争を知らない～、こーどーもたーちさ～」と歌っていた世代なので受験戦争は大変でも比較的トラウマが少ない世代でもありました。 　同じ社会運動でも60年安保世代は子供時代に戦争の記憶がありますが兵士としては戦争に参加していない中で戦争を経験した人たちが混じっていた時代です。 　1921年大正10年生まれくらいまでは戦争でも戦場経験者で大正10年生まれくらいは学生なのに学徒出陣で戦場に言った世代です。 　1930年昭和5年生まれくらいまでは終戦までに人格形成が終わっている世代で、1930年昭和5年以降の世代は敗戦時に人格形成がまだなされていなかった世代です。 　こういう世代論年代論時代論は精神医学やらいろんな領域でもっと研究されてもよさそうなものですが仮に研究されていたとしてもあまり人々が歴史や社会を見る際の常識や通念にはならなかったようで新しい世代には検証されていない傾向があります。 ・そもそもの話、平等と自由は 　平等というのはなかなか難しいところがあります。 　何を持って平等とするのか分かりません。 　人間の平等なら分子配列から何から何まで同じ人間がいれば平等かもしれませんが存在する時空間の位置が違いますしその結果2人の将来が分岐していくと考えられますのでどうしてもやはり何かしらの違いがあります。 　時空間の位置も全く同じに重ね合わせられることができてその上で同じように動けば全く平等なのでしょうが何かシュールというかサイコティックというか訳が分かりません。 　抽象的、形而上的、観念的、頭の中だけでぼんやりと、あるいは口で平等を言うのは簡単ですが具体的に突っ込まれると答え方によっていくつものセクトが分岐していくかもしれません。 　天国みたいなところがあれば真の人間の平等が実現できるのかもしれません。 　「人間の平等」から「人間の」を外すと一部の環境左翼団体みたいになるのかもしれません。 　さらに近代の理念である例えば自由と平等は天国みたいな特殊なところがあれば共存できるのかもしれませんがこれも現実ではトレードオフするようなところがあります。 　それに自由も平等と同じく抽象的な平等と具体的、現実的な平等は違うものです。 　ここが違うからこそ「イデア論」みたいな理論があったのでしょうがこれを実装しようとすると困難になるのでより実務家というか現実主義的なアルキメデスは別の理論を考えたのでしょう。 ・なぜかは知らないがリベラルと呼ばれるようになった 　こういった一連の小さな平等、小さな差別をあら捜しして告発してつるし上げるような風潮はおそらくいろいろな歴史的経緯からリベラルと呼ばれています。 　本来究極的な「人間の平等」を追求するのは正義で真理で絶対みたいな感覚はある年代から上の人にはわかるのではないでしょうか。 　めちゃ若い人はしりませんが。 　それが世界の広い年代の人に共有されたからこそごく最近のポリティカルコレクトネス（通称ポリコレ）が成り立ったのでしょう。 　ポリコレは現代哲学では解体できますし、体育会やら保守的な頑固おやじややはり頭の悪い（悪い意味ではない）頑固おやじやマッチョイムズに弱い所がありますし、逆にインテリ系でも現場重視や実証主義には弱い所があります。 　「差別の何が悪い」とか「別に差別されても関係ない」とかいう大雑把な豪の者がいればそもそも差別のコードが成り立ちませんし解体されてしまう場合があります。 　そういう意味では差別を知らない世代は頭の悪い頑固おやじと同じくポリコレに強い所があるかもしれません。 　「え、差別？それなに？」と言われてしまえば差別は成り立ちません。 　昔はそういう反応した人を捕まえてはつ刷り上げたり指導したり再教育する時代が長かったですが今ではそういうことも多分少なくなってきているでしょう。 例えばフェミニストの東京大学元総長の上野千鶴子が民族学者の赤松啓介にけちょんけちょんにやられていながらうれしそうにしていたのは印象的です。 上野千鶴子氏もなにか窮屈さを感じていたのかもしれません。 　今は平等は人間だけではなくなってきているかもしれません。 　子供の数よりペットの数の方が多い国も多いです。 　犬猫などのペットは3歳くらいの子供と10年以上暮らすのと一緒で下手すると実の子より深い愛着形成がなされます。 　イルカやクジラは知能があるから捕鯨禁止論も昔はありましたが今はやや下火の様です。 　頑張れ新左翼という本があって新自由主義とグローバリズムがいきすぎた現代だからこそ左翼（公安では共産党を指す、極左は共産党より左、共産党から見れば共産党より中道の左翼は日和見）が頑張ってくれたらいいのでしょうがかといって正義と真理と絶対を振りかざされてはかないません。 　環境問題ではEVや太陽光パネルのように逆に環境問題を悪化させてしまった節があります。 ・集団主義と個人主義 　レーニンは革命を指導する唯一であるべきエリート党である前衛党に共産党とつけましたがこのcommunismという言葉は面白いです。 　直訳すれば集団主義と訳せます。 　平等は集団主義と関係があるのでしょう。 　集団主義の反対は個人主義です。 　個人主義は自由と関係がありそうです。 　個人主義で自由でも人から何を言われようとも気にしない主体性や自覚や自主性や強さがあって変なコンプレックスとか劣等感がなく健全とのびのび育って自分に真の自信が持てればその段階で多様性があって人になりを言われようとも差別というスキームが成り立たない平等な社会ができるかもしれません。 　これは社会が豊かで人類が進歩したからそう思えるのであって昔では無理だったかもしれませんが多分貴族や侍や聖職者などの一部の人たちは昔からそういう形で平等を成立させていた可能性があります。 　これは同時に自由でもあるので今後追求路線の可能性としてはありだと思いますし現代思想てきな考え方でもありますのである程度のコンセンサスは得られるのではないでしょうか？

Quantum Theory: A Second Way to Relativize Realism beyond Structuralism On the Possible Coexistence of Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory

Quantum Theory: A Second Way to Relativize Realism beyond Structuralism On the Possible Coexistence of Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory 1. Non-realist views are possible even without structuralism One of the basic frameworks of contemporary philosophy can be sketched, roughly, as a tension between Realism, and Structuralism. Realism is the default setting that has soaked into almost everyone’s mind: There are solid “things” and “essences” in the world, existing independently of our minds. Observation and language simply pick them up and label them. Structuralism responds to this by saying, in effect: No, what comes first is “structure,” “difference,” and “institution.” “Objects” and “subjects” arise on the side of what is structured. In that sense, structuralism has functioned as a way to relativize the absolute claims of realism. What I want to say first is this: Realism is extremely useful. It develops more or less naturally in ontogeny as a “cognitive OS” that works in daily life. Structuralism is an “OS upgrade” that lets us meta-recognize and partially rewrite that realist OS. However, structuralism is not the only position that both criticizes realism and offers a coherent alternative picture of the world. There is another very powerful candidate: quantum theory (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and the quantum world-view more broadly). Whether or not we want to call quantum theory a “philosophy,” its world-picture is philosophically explosive enough that we might as well treat it as one. For many of us living now, who feel that realism alone is not enough, but living solely inside structuralism is a bit too cumbersome, verbose, and tiring, quantum theory can serve as a third stance that sits nicely alongside realism and structuralism. My personal stance could be summarized like this: At the level of basic epistemology and ontology, structuralism can include realism, whereas realism cannot fully include structuralism. In that sense, structuralism is more encompassing. At the same time, realism still works surprisingly well; it remains convenient in everyday life and in engineering. If we then introduce quantum theory as a third pole from the side of physics, we can put realism and structuralism under pressure from both the “humanities” and the “natural sciences.” This three-cornered configuration is, I think, the richest and most productive. 2. “Boundary” and “volume” as the core of realism At the core of realism lies something like Descartes’ notion of extension. In the material world, things have volume, boundaries, and occupy space. They do not simply pop into or out of existence, and we expect a certain degree of persistence. This image underwrites our naïve sense of “substance” or “reality.” Mind and ideas may look different from this, yet we often treat them metaphorically as if they were little physical objects: Thoughts feel like they are “in the head,” Feelings often feel like they are “sitting in the chest.” In many cases, we are borrowing the metaphors of extension and volume from the physical world to grasp mental phenomena. However, when we try to treat “extension” seriously in mathematics, we run into trouble quite early on. Already in Euclidean geometry, we are told: A point is that which has no size. If you’re satisfied with this, that’s fine; but if you think about it carefully, it is a very strange definition. How can “points” with no boundary and no volume serve as the basis of lines, planes, and solids? If we straightforwardly extend our realist intuition of “things,” the concept starts to slip. This kind of unease and limit is part of what led, through set theory and topological spaces, to structuralist modern mathematics (category theory and beyond). Even so, in practice we still treat “points” and “mass points” in a realist fashion, because that is simply more convenient. Even in quantum theory, if you push too hard on questions about the exact size and boundary of a particle, your head explodes; so we partially give up, and treat it as if it were “a tiny object here,” a sort of pragmatic fiction. In that sense, we cannot completely abandon the borrowed tools of realism even in quantum theory. 3. Classical physics is thoroughly realist In this sense, classical physics is almost purely a realist world. Mass points Rigid bodies Continua such as fluids and elastic media All of these can be learned with realist intuitions alone. “At such-and-such a place there is an object with such-and-such mass, and its position and velocity are always well defined.” Observation is simply the act of reading off properties that are already there, and time evolution is given by Newton’s equations and the like. This is, philosophically, a combination of naïve realism + determinism. The flip side is that if your world consists only of realism + classical physics, and you then try to tackle quantum theory, you will almost certainly run into a wall. Trying to understand quantum theory solely as an extension of high-school physics leaves you fatally under-equipped. If, by contrast, you have already internalized structuralism (as a relativization of meaning, language, and institution), and quantum theory (as a relativization from the side of physics), then looking back on classical physics becomes a luxury. Assumptions that once felt “obvious” suddenly show their seams. You begin to enjoy re-examining your former fixed ideas. But of course, acquiring those newer perspectives in the first place comes with a high learning cost. Both structuralism and quantum theory are “expensive” to learn. 4. Contemporary philosophy’s three basic positions: Realism, structuralism, and quantum theory With the arrival of structuralism and post-structuralism, contemporary philosophy relativized realism, meta-recognized that very process of relativization, and learned to play with multiple perspectives. Buddhism makes this structure quite explicit: Early Buddhism’s dependent origination and middle way, Mahāyāna’s doctrine of emptiness and the Madhyamaka, Tiantai’s threefold truth (the provisional, emptiness, and the middle). If we make a rough correspondence with our current topic, we might say: Provisional truth (仮諦) The everyday world of “taking things as they appear.” Naïve realism, socially constructed fictions. Emptiness (空諦) Denial of substance, and seeing at the level of relations and conditions. Structuralist and post-structuralist relativization. Middle truth (中諦) A meta-stance that passes through both while preserving each. A way of switching between multiple OSs as needed. Against this background, the question arises: Besides structuralism, are there other theories that can stand as counter-positions to realism? If we look only within contemporary philosophy, it is somewhat difficult to produce concrete examples. Here, quantum theory becomes a very attractive candidate. Quantum theory has the curious property that if we want, we can translate it into the language of structuralism; with some effort, we can also give it realist reinterpretations; yet at the same time, it is grounded in empirical science, and constantly updated through tension between experiment and theory. In that sense, quantum theory is a third pole, different in character from purely philosophical theories. Thus I think it is very promising to treat Realism, structuralism, and quantum theory as three positions that coexist in a kind of equilibrium. This three-point configuration can open contemporary philosophy to a broader public, connecting it naturally to physics and even to Buddhist thought. 5. Why quantum theory can serve as a “non-structuralist” critique of realism 5.1 Why quantum theory shakes classical realism The classical world-view assumes, in effect: “Even if nobody is looking, the moon is there, and its position and momentum are well defined.” Quantum theory, especially in its Copenhagen-style understanding and in light of Bell’s theorem, undermines this at a very basic level. Before measurement, properties such as position and spin are not simply well defined. Measurement is not “reading off a pre-existing value,” but something closer to an event of fixing a relational state. With quantum entanglement, we are forced to treat “here” and “there” as two parts of a single, indivisible whole. This world-picture does not sit well with classical realism’s narrative: “There is a hidden essence somewhere, and science’s task is to uncover it.” However, we must be careful. Within quantum theory there coexist both more instrumentalist / anti-realist interpretations (Copenhagen, information-theoretic views), and more realist interpretations (Many-Worlds, de Broglie–Bohm, GRW, and others). So if we say, “Quantum theory = anti-realism,” we are over-simplifying. It is more accurate to say: Quantum theory has pushed classical realism’s basic assumptions (locality, determinism, and properties independent of measurement) to the point where they cannot be maintained in their naïve form. 5.2 A “conspiracy” between structuralism and quantum theory If we compare realism, structuralism, and quantum theory, we get a rough contrast like this: Realism Basic unit: “individuals” and “subjects.” Properties are internal to the thing itself. Message: “Truth is hidden in there.” Structuralism Basic unit: “relations” and “structures.” Properties are determined by position and difference within a system. Message: “Truth is an effect of the system.” Quantum theory Basic unit: “states” and “interactions.” Properties are fixed within relationships of measurement. Message: “Reality is the overall pattern of measurement outcomes.” Both structuralism and quantum theory shift the center of gravity from substance to relation. In that sense, they stand in a kind of “conspiracy” against classical realism. 5.3 Structural realism and “quantum structuralism” In philosophy of science, there is a position called structural realism: It may be dubious whether “particles” like electrons and quarks truly exist as little beads, but the mathematical structure of their relations does exist. That structure is what science gets right. If we read quantum theory through this lens, it becomes: Quantum theory moves the locus of reality away from “objects themselves” and toward “the structure of state spaces, operators, and probabilistic correlations.” At this point, we are very close to a kind of physical structuralism, or “quantum structuralism.” It comes so close to philosophical structuralism that the border between the two begins to blur. 6. Rewriting spacetime from the viewpoint of quantum theory Realism, structuralism, and a new spacetime concept Let us briefly return to the realist premise: The clearest example of something “real” is a physical object. It occupies space, persists through changes and deformations, and we can track it. In that case, reality seems to presuppose spacetime. So what happens if we start to shake that spacetime concept itself? Quantum theory, especially in its quantum-information and quantum-gravity frontiers, is now pressing in exactly this direction. 6.1 Entanglement and the breakdown of “distance” Quantum entanglement shows us that no matter how far apart we separate two systems, there can be strong, stable correlations between measurement outcomes. Importantly, those correlations look “instantaneous,” but they cannot be used to send controllable information faster than light. So: causal structure (the prohibition of faster-than-light signals) is preserved, yet “physical distance” and “relational closeness” come apart. We therefore need two different notions of distance: geometric distance in spacetime, and relational distance in terms of correlation and entanglement. It may be that, in some sense, Even if things are far apart in space, they can be “very close” in terms of their relational structure. 6.2 Superposition and the wobble of time If we take experiments such as delayed-choice seriously, we are led to pictures like: Present measurements seem to determine what past “paths” must have been, Before measurement, it is unclear whether the system had a definite past at all. Time then begins to look less like a rigid, one-way river flowing from past to future, and more like: Until certain relational events occur, both “past” and “future” exist as overlapping bundles of possibilities. From the perspective of natural language, we might say: Instead of subjects being fixed in advance, waiting for predicates to fill in, Predicative events and relations are what bring subjects into being. That is, a more predicate-centered, “event-first” world-view fits the quantum picture surprisingly well. 6.3 ER=EPR and emergent spacetime In quantum gravity and holography, one influential conjecture goes under the slogan “ER = EPR.” Very roughly: EPR refers to quantum entanglement (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen). ER refers to Einstein–Rosen bridges, i.e. wormholes in spacetime. The idea is that entangled systems might be connected, at a deeper level, by something like microscopic wormholes. If this is right, we can think: What is fundamental is the network of quantum relations and entanglements. The 3+1 dimensional spacetime we experience is a kind of holographic shadow of that network. 6.4 A categorical world-picture In the language of category theory, we might put it this way. Old spacetime picture (set-theoretic) First there is a container called “space.” Points and objects are placed in it. Nearness and farness are given by metric distances. New spacetime picture (categorical) First there is a network of “relations” and “morphisms.” The thickness and patterning of that network appears as “distance” and “geometry.” Things are “close” because they are strongly and directly connected. In this view, Spacetime is not the OS, but more like the UI or application layer. The true OS lies in Hilbert spaces, operators, and the network of entanglement. This image resonates strongly with the idea that classical spacetime is a useful effective theory, beneath which there is a quantum relational structure. 7. Conclusion: The “three-corner equilibrium” of realism, structuralism, and quantum theory Let me now gather the pieces. Realism A world-view that takes individuals, objects, and subjects as basic. Extremely practical in everyday life and engineering. Classical physics fits comfortably here. Structuralism A world-view that foregrounds relations, differences, and structures. Relativizes meaning, language, institution, and power. Quantum theory A scientific world-view centered on states, interactions, and correlations. Undermines classical assumptions of locality, determinism, and measurement-independent properties. Can be linked to structural realism and “quantum structuralism.” These three are not a trinity doomed to doctrinal warfare, but rather the three vertices of a triangulation that lets us locate ourselves more precisely. For daily life and technology, we can lean on realist intuitions. For society, culture, ideology, and the unconscious, we can adopt structuralist lenses. For the physical and spatiotemporal foundations of the world, we can consult quantum theory as a third pole. On top of that, we can translate realism into structuralist language, reinterpret structuralism in realist metaphors, and express quantum theory in either vocabulary when needed. All of this is possible, but none of these translations is complete or cost-free. That is precisely why the coexistence of the three is fruitful. The coexistence of realism, structuralism, and quantum theory is not about deciding which is “right,” but about having three OSs available, each suited to different tasks and scales. Framed this way, we gain a single conceptual map where contemporary philosophy, modern physics, and Buddhist thought can be discussed together without forcing them all into one dogmatic mold.

[Essay] The Tripartite Coexistence of Worldviews: Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory — At the Intersection of Modern Philosophy and Modern Physics —

[Essay] The Tripartite Coexistence of Worldviews: Realism, Structuralism, and Quantum Theory — At the Intersection of Modern Philosophy and Modern Physics — Introduction: Non-Realism Exists Without Structuralism The basic framework of modern philosophy is often discussed in terms of the opposition between "Realism" and "Structuralism," which serves to relativize it. "Realism" is naively ingrained in our minds. It is the sensation that the objects before us are certainly there, and that the world remains unchanged whether we observe it or not. To relativize this, 20th-century thought produced a powerful tool known as "Structuralism." This is the idea that meaning and value do not reside in the object itself but are determined by relationships (structure). However, is Structuralism the only ideology capable of critiquing and relativizing Realism? In fact, there exists an even more powerful "ideology" within the realm of natural science. That is "Quantum Theory." While there may be debate about calling Quantum Theory—a field of physics—an "ideology," it is an extremely important intellectual framework that defines our modern worldview. This essay discusses the possibility of a "tripartite coexistence," where we position Quantum Theory as a third pole alongside Realism and Structuralism, allowing us to interpret the world in a more three-dimensional and flexible manner. 1. The Essence of Realism: Cartesian "Extension" and Classical Physics First, let us organize what the "Realism" we are accustomed to actually is. The quintessence of Realism lies in the Cartesian concept of "Extension" (Res extensa). Boundaries and Volume: Matter has clear "boundaries," possesses "volume," and exclusively occupies space. It does not suddenly vanish or appear. Geometric Consistency: This worldview is highly compatible with Euclidean geometry and coordinate geometry. The refinement of this realistic worldview to its limit is "Classical Physics (Newtonian Mechanics)." Classical physics deals with point masses and rigid bodies, but fundamentally presupposes Naive Realism: "Even if no one is looking, the moon is there, possessing a specific position and velocity." This way of thinking is extremely practical (utilitarian) in our daily lives. It is evolutionarily advantageous to believe "the object is there" and act accordingly, without consuming excessive brain resources. If we were to constantly think, like a structuralist, that "this is merely a phenomenon given meaning by social structures," we would be too exhausted to function in daily life. Therefore, Realism should be affirmed as a "convenient intellectual tool (User Interface) acquired naturally during individual development." 2. The Limits of Realism and Two Counterparts However, when we begin to think deeply, Realism alone runs into "inconvenient truths." These include contradictions in the mathematical definition of a "point (something with no magnitude)" and the complexity of social phenomena. Here, two paths emerge to relativize Realism. ① Counter from the Humanities (Meaning): Structuralism This posits that "truth is not inherent in the thing itself, but is an effect produced by the system (language, society, unconsciousness)," thereby dismantling the absoluteness of the subject. While powerful, it is conceptually difficult to master and can be too "circuitous" to apply constantly in daily life. ② Counter from the Sciences (Matter): Quantum Theory This is the main subject of this essay. Quantum Theory shakes Realism to its core by questioning the very nature of physical "matter." Classical Mechanics (Realism): The world is a collection of independent "points (things)," and their properties are predetermined. Quantum Theory (Relationalism): Properties (position or state) are not determined until observation (interaction) occurs. There are no "things," only "probabilities" and "relationships." Quantum Theory shares the paradigm shift of "From Substance to Relation" with Structuralism. In a sense, Structuralism and Quantum Theory are in a complicit relationship, launching a pincer attack on the massive fortress of Realism from the "side of Meaning" and the "side of Matter," respectively. 3. The Collapse of Space-Time Concepts: A New Worldview Presented by Quantum Theory The most radical question Quantum Theory poses to Realism is the rewriting of "Space-Time" itself, which is the premise of existence. When we feel "reality," it is placed inside a "box called Space-Time." However, modern Quantum Theory (especially findings from quantum entanglement and quantum gravity) overturns this common sense. Loss of Distance (Non-locality): When two particles are in a state of quantum entanglement, the observation result of one correlates "instantly" with the other, even if they are billions of light-years apart. This suggests that the concept of "distance" we believe in does not exist at a fundamental level, or that they are connected by a "backdoor (wormhole, etc.)" distinct from the space we know (The ER=EPR conjecture). Fluctuation of Causality: In a state of "superposition," past and future, cause and effect, are mixed as a "fog of possibilities" until observed. Time is not an absolute entity flowing in a straight line but something that manifests as a result of interaction. In other words, the idea is reversed: "It is not that there is an absolute stage (box) called Space-Time where matter exists, but rather, a network of relationships (entanglement) exists first, and Space-Time emerges from it like a hologram." This aligns with the perspective of perceiving the world not as "Set-theoretic (collection of elements)" but as "Category-theoretic (arrows of relationships)." 4. Conclusion: The "Adult Wisdom" of Using Three Ideologies We have Structuralism and Post-Structuralism as the achievements of modern philosophy. Buddhist concepts of "Emptiness (Śūnyatā)" and "Madhyamaka (Middle Way)" also occupy a similar position. However, by adding Quantum Theory, which is backed by "empirical proof from natural science," the argument becomes much more robust. We should be able to use (or coexist with) the following three perspectives depending on the situation: Realism (Classical Mechanics): A high-efficiency "User Interface (UI)" for handling daily life and macroscopic phenomena. Structuralism (Social Sciences): An "Analytical Tool" for understanding social, cultural, and linguistic biases and engaging in metacognition. Quantum Theory (Modern Physics): A "Fundamental OS" for understanding the radical nature of matter and the universe (relationships, non-locality). We do not need to assert that "Quantum Theory = Non-Realism." There are various interpretations within Quantum Theory itself. However, in that "Quantum Theory presents the physical fact that the Realist worldview is not absolute," it can serve as a "modern liberal art" equal to, or perhaps more powerful than, Structuralism. We do not discard Realism, nor do we become overly cerebral with Structuralism, nor do we escape into mysticism via the strangeness of Quantum Theory. Juxtaposing these three as "theories with different effective layers" and moving freely between them—this is, perhaps, the balanced intellectual attitude required in the modern age.