Understanding Japan's Left, Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism First, a Simple Definition: What is "The Left"?

Understanding Japan's Left, Socialism, Communism, and Liberalism First, a Simple Definition: What is "The Left"? I forget whether it is the Public Security Police or the Public Security Intelligence Agency (PSIA), but they have a specific definition for "The Left." It is essentially: "The Left consists of the Communist Party and everything to the left of it." In this context, the anchor is the Communist Party. To avoid misunderstanding, I should note that this is a "security term" used by the police and public security, so it differs slightly from the general definition in the history of political thought. Since this is a public security definition, it is used to define so-called "Ultra-Leftist Violent Groups." These are groups that aim for a socialist or communist revolution and plot to destroy the current system through violence. Historically, these groups were formed centered around those who were expelled from or left the Japanese Communist Party (JCP) around the mid-1950s (Showa 30s). If you know the history and society of Japan up until around 1970 (plus a few years), this is actually an excellent definition. Even if you don't know that history and just look at modern society, it remains a definition with deep implications. However, in modern Japan, the usage of the word "Left" has become much broader. The word "Liberal" is also a bit of a chimera—hard to pin down—but nowadays, this is also generally treated as "Left." The meaning of words inevitably changes with the place and the times. Here are a few axes to consider when thinking about "The Left," or equality. Setting these coordinates makes it easier to understand. (In reality, there are more). Economic Axis: Market-oriented ↔ Redistribution / Public intervention Political System Axis: Liberal Democracy ↔ Vanguard Party / One-party rule Cultural Axis: Traditionalism ↔ Anti-discrimination / Diversity / Value renewal International Axis: Nationalism ↔ Internationalism A Rough Overview Roughly speaking, there are two main ideologies in the world. Capitalism, Liberalism, Market Principles, Exchange Economy, Democracy, etc. Leftism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism (in the modern sense). You probably have a vague understanding of the former, so if you grasp the image of the latter, you will understand the world much better. Liberty and Equality If we try to create a society that respects Liberty (Freedom) as much as possible, it becomes something like Capitalism, and gaps (inequality) widen. A gap does not necessarily mean "inequality" in the unjust sense, nor does it mean discrimination, but the movement to achieve economic equality as much as possible is what we call Socialism or Communism. The Left originally aimed for economic equality for humanity, but setting that aside for a moment, those who aim for "equality" in a general sense are often called Liberals. The Flow of Socialism The pursuit of human economic equality has long been called Socialism. However, in the mid-19th century, Marx appeared, and in the 20th century, figures like Lenin led revolutions, making this the representative form of the Left. This is named Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism In Marxism-Leninism, the final destination of society is predetermined. This is called Communist Society. In a Communist Society, all social classes, as well as the distinction between rulers and the ruled, disappear, and the means of production are shared by everyone. No country in modern times has achieved this system. If we look for small organizations, the Kibbutz in Israel was a small community like this, though I do not know if they still exist in that form today. Marx was Naive; Lenin Could Not Afford to Be Marx believed that becoming a Communist Society was a historical inevitability. He thought that as capitalism matured, society would naturally transition to communism. Lenin and his comrades realized that even if capitalism matured, the world would not turn communist on its own. When the world becomes wealthy, workers also become wealthy. For example, once people reach a certain level of affluence, they start feeling that they don't necessarily need strict economic equality or shared means of production. Originally, "discrimination" was not the main theme for genuine Leftists (Communists)—their theme was class—but as wealth grows, people care less about who is above or below. Another example: As capitalism developed, Imperialism and Colonialism also developed. The citizens of countries that possessed colonies became wealthy and stopped caring about leftist ideology. Furthermore, when a war breaks out—World War I being the best example—citizens stop caring about equality or discrimination. When fighting a war in earnest, equality and discrimination become trivial matters. Instead, patriotism and the drive "not to lose" take over. Consequently, aside from the parties in Russia (and Germany) where revolutions occurred, the Socialist Parties in Europe collapsed during WWI because they chose nationalism over international worker solidarity. Thus, Leninism is the idea that since the world will not naturally become a Communist Society, one must artificially control the populace to make it resemble one. Lenin's Artificial Communization "Equality" is actually hard to understand when you think about it. Even if we define it specifically as "everyone sharing the means of production" or "eliminating economic gaps," it is still unclear what that actually looks like. As anyone who has worked in society knows (and I'm not dissing those who haven't), specific administrative execution is difficult. How do you practically achieve it? What are the politics, economics, laws, and institutions of the society to be achieved? How do you troubleshoot problems when they arise? The list is endless. Every society in history has surely had people struggling with these issues. The Left's ideal is economic equality, but since Marxism-Leninism is the one that actually managed to operate and influence other socialisms, understanding just that is sufficient. The Difference Between Socialism and Communism Socialism is the ideology of striving to realize human economic equality. Therefore, while you are striving for Socialism, human economic equality has not yet been realized. Communism aims for a state where economic equality is achieved, class (status differences) is gone, and means of production are shared by all. The Difference Between Socialist Society and Communist Society Since Socialism is the state of striving to realize Communism, the countries historically called "Communist countries," including modern China, are technically Socialist Societies, Socialist Regimes, or Socialist States. Whether it is past nations or present-day China, they are all Socialist States. There has never been a single Communist State in history that has achieved a Communist Society. To date, there are only Socialist States striving toward a Communist Society. The Difference Between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party The Socialist Party (JSP in Japan's context) is a party aiming for social equality. However, opinions here are somewhat disjointed. Socialism and Socialist Parties existed before Marx, and there are currents different from Marxism-Leninism. (I will explain the Japanese Socialist Party later). The Communist Party (JCP) is the same as the Socialist Party in aiming for economic equality. However, the invention of the "Communist Party" and "Communism" as we know it comes from Marxism-Leninism. Communism is more specific than Socialism; it specifies that there should be no distinction between managers and the managed (no classes) even in non-economic areas. It is also more specific in that means of production are shared by all. Since Marx wrote the "Communist Manifesto," it was Marx who popularized the term "Communist Party." The invention of Communism can also be attributed to Marx. Lenin and his associates then refined (or altered) it. More Important than the "Communist Party" is the "Vanguard Party" and Revolution There is a view that the name doesn't matter; the content is what counts. In Leninism, since a Communist Society will not occur naturally, one must strive hard to realize it. Also, what is important in Marxism-Leninism is that Revolution is necessary to change the world. Revolutions do not happen on their own if left alone. Marx and Lenin might not have wanted to agree with this reality (that it's not inevitable), but there is also the possibility that even if the world changes, it won't become a Communist Society, or that the premise of a "final destination of history" is wrong. It is good to have a broad perspective to organize these thoughts. Regardless, in Marxism-Leninism, the most important thing is that the Vanguard Party—the one and only party leading the revolution—must lead the revolution and strive to transition the world into a Communist Society. Therefore, rather than the name "Socialist Party" or "Communist Party," being the Vanguard Party that bears the brunt of the revolution is the most important concept. For a revolutionary, being a member of the Vanguard Party is the supreme duty. Lenin Created the "Communist Party" Because He Was Disgusted with the Socialist Party It was Lenin who established the "Communist Party" as a brand. You might retort, "Didn't Marx publish the Communist Manifesto?" Well, yes, but let's gloss over that for now. World War I was a major turning point in the history of the Left. You might say, "Obviously, because the Russian Revolution happened," and that is true. But more importantly, during WWI, the Socialist Parties of European countries became more obsessed with patriotism and winning the war than with human equality. "Economic equality" was put on the back burner, and the solidarity of Socialist Parties across countries vanished. At this time, Mussolini, who was rated as Italy's number one Socialist, realized, "Humans have stronger feelings for patriotism and winning wars than for economic equality." (Trivia: This is where Fascism originated). Anyway, Lenin, enraged by the pathetic state of the Socialist Parties in various countries, named his Bolsheviks the "Communist Party," which is the origin of the modern Communist Party. Think of it as a name chosen to differentiate themselves: "We are different from those pathetic Socialist Parties in Europe." Let's Summarize for a Moment "The Left" is broadly a way of thinking that advocates for human equality. The terminology originates from the French Revolution ("Liberty, Equality, Fraternity"). Socialism existed before Marx, and it is also an egalitarian ideology. After Marx, it added "no classes, economic equality, and shared means of production." The word "Equality" is originally ambiguous. However, at that time (and perhaps still today), the mindset of judging everything by money was strong. For those whose mental resources are occupied by money, "Equality" easily short-circuits to "Money Equality," "Gap," "Poverty," or "Rich people are evil." Marx was, from Lenin's perspective, somewhat optimistic/naive, thinking "If the current capitalist society develops, it will automatically become a communist society" (a flower-garden mindset). However, as time went on, many signs appeared that things wouldn't go as Marx theorized. Lenin, facing this problem, used brute force to cause a revolution (or hijacked one). Several revolutions occurred during WWI, for example, in Germany. But the only one that succeeded in the direction of Communism was Russia. Germany went from an Empire to a Republic, even though Germany was far more advanced in capitalism than Russia. In Russia's case, Lenin and others strove to bring the revolution closer to the realization of Communism, resulting in the USSR. However, after the revolution, they were fighting a civil war against counter-revolutionary forces, so it wasn't as if Socialists purely executed the revolution or ruled the country peacefully from day one. A civil war ensued, but perhaps because of heroes like Trotsky, the Communist Party succeeded in taking power in Russia, forming the Soviet Union. Reality Does Not Go Like the Ideal The Soviet Union was not a Communist system, but its official stance (or pretext) was to aim for Communism. However, trying to aim for Communism in a country like Russia, which was a serfdom rather than a mature capitalist state, was not easy. According to Marxism, you must first make the country a mature capitalist state. But under Leninism, waiting for capitalism to develop and mature naturally (as per Marx) was no longer an option. Since it was impossible, Leninism dictates that the Vanguard Party (Soviet Communist Party) must lead the nation and citizens to build a mature capitalist state (state capitalism). But that is difficult. The Russian Empire was already trying to modernize, though opinions vary on the speed. It is even possible that modernization/capitalization could have proceeded better under the pre-revolution order. They were carrying out reforms. But due to losing WWI, the chaos of the Civil War, Stalin (who defeated his rival Trotsky) implementing tyrannical rule, WWII, and international isolation, the Soviet Union remained a poor country with bad economic policies, failing to achieve mature capitalism. "Communist Country" is Confusing Since there is no country with a Communist Society in history, the USSR was not a Communist Country. The USSR was a Socialist Country. However, if we define a "Communist Country" as "a country aiming for Communism," then it was a Communist Country. Furthermore, the USSR was a one-party dictatorship by the Communist Party. In the sense that the Communist Party was superior to the State and ruled it, one can understand the urge to call it "Communism" if one doesn't know what a Communist Society actually is. Also, the Left generally has high pride and likes to sound cool. Lenin called this "Left-Wing Infantile Disorder" (believed to be the origin of the term Chu-ni-byo or "Middle School 2nd Year Syndrome"). He meant they should discard petty-bourgeois emotions and be thorough, but this "Chu-ni-byo" seems to be a chronic disease that persists even in the modern CCP. Because of their high pride, they would rather call themselves a "Communist Country" than a "Socialist Country" because it sounds cooler. Conversely, in liberal countries, "Communist" is a slur. It feels better to label the USSR as "Communist" and badmouth it than to call it a Socialist Country. Perhaps due to these interlocking motives, the USSR, the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War, and modern China are often called "Communist Countries." Words can mean whatever we want as long as we define them clearly when necessary, but these various intentions have meshed to create the usage of "Communist State." The problem that became apparent around 1970 was: "Does the Left actually intend to create a Communist Society?" Two-Stage Revolution Theory Since a country like Russia was not a mature capitalist country, Marxism did not apply. Marx wrote that if a revolution occurs in an immature country, it will fail and lead to worse economic monopoly and inequality. When asked by Russian revolutionaries if a revolution was possible in Russia, Marx gave a vague/non-committal answer. So, Leninism was born to aim for Communism by brute force. Leninism created various theories to adapt to reality and valued administrative execution. After Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky fought over succession. Stalin won, but from this point on, it became suspicious whether they really aimed for Communism. Russia could not realize a Communist Society immediately after the revolution. They had to do something to get there. Thus, the Two-Stage Revolution Theory was born. Stage 1: Under the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party, advance the maturation of capitalism. Stage 2: Launch another revolution to finally eliminate the Communist Party and the ruled class, creating a Communist Society where means of production are shared and economic equality exists. However, under the one-party dictatorship, the Nomenklatura (ruling class) governed and matured the economy, but for some reason, every country stops here. In both the USSR and China, after the Communist Party's dictatorship succeeded, party members became a privileged class, became wealthy, and the gap with other citizens widened. This Two-Stage Revolution Theory became the cause of the split between the Koza-ha (Lecture Faction) and Rono-ha (Worker-Peasant Faction) in the pre-war Japanese Communist Party. This is important in JCP history. The Koza-ha believed Japan still needed to undergo two revolutions (Democratic then Socialist). They swallowed the Comintern's "1932 Thesis" whole. The Rono-ha took an independent route, believing the Meiji Restoration counted as the first stage, so only the final revolution remained. This conflict carried over into the post-war conflict between the International Faction and the Mainstream Faction (Shokan-ha), though there was a break due to the war. Corruption of the Communist Party Once a one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party was established, they did not move toward establishing a Communist Society. This is true for both the USSR and China. The USSR actually obstructed countries trying to create a true Communist Society. Examples: The Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring. In Hungary, workers tried to carry out the "next revolution" to share means of production and eliminate class gaps, but the USSR crushed it with military force. In the Prague Spring, when they tried to mature capitalism (liberalization) after the party dictatorship, the USSR crushed that too. Once you taste the sweet nectar of power, you don't want to let go. Japan was unique in that the Samurai voluntarily discarded their privileges during the Meiji Restoration; usually, it doesn't go that way. The USSR under Stalin was particularly bad; instead of the Party, it advanced a one-man dictatorship, which actually lowered national power. China was also terrible; Mao Zedong started the Cultural Revolution, a strange event different from Marxism-Leninism. Mao was good at starting revolutions but likely unsuited for the work of realizing a Communist Society afterward. Or perhaps he didn't understand the Communist Party or Marxism-Leninism. He might have just been a professional revolutionary. The Japan Communist Party (JCP) Was Competent Socialist movements were active in Japan since before the war, adopting Marxism-Leninism early on. The JCP was formed with Soviet help. However, due to internal strife (lynchings), government oppression, and the wartime regime, it quieted down. After the war, GHQ (General Headquarters of the Allied Powers) was favorable to the Communist Party and released imprisoned communists. Not only political prisoners but also figures like Kenji Miyamoto (later JCP Chairman), who was imprisoned for a criminal offense (bodily injury resulting in death), were released in the confusion. In 1947, they tried to launch a General Strike, but GHQ stopped it. There were many leftists within the US administration and GHQ itself, but a general strike with millions of participants would have ruined occupation policies. At this time, people like Tsuneo Watanabe (Nabe-Tsune of Yomiuri Shimbun) and Ujiie (Nippon TV) left the Communist Party. Nabe-Tsune achieved social success using skills cultivated in the Communist Party but shifted to the right. In 1950, the Korean War began. Before that, China had become Communist. The US started to panic. If Japan was lost, the regions Japan used to govern would turn leftist. The US had to prevent the communization of Asia in Japan's place. Here, the US and GHQ were forced to accept pre-war Japan's claim: "Japan was just fighting to prevent Asia from becoming Communist." The US was angry at Japan and planned to keep Japan as a country with an economy smaller than the Philippines forever, but they changed course. They changed the strategy to make Japan a bastion against Communism (The Reverse Course). When the Korean War started, the Cominform (Soviet organization) instructed the JCP to start a civil war in Japan, and the JCP went along with it. They couldn't start a full civil war, but they started armed uprisings/struggles, killing police officers and forming covert ops teams (Mountain Village Operation Units) to cause disturbances. In 1955, when the Korean War ended, the JCP stopped the armed struggle. Kenji Miyamoto took real power and reigned as the Chairman for 40 years. Also in 1955, the Left and Right wings of the Socialist Party merged to form the Japan Socialist Party (JSP), and the Liberal Party and Democratic Party merged to form the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), creating the 1955 System. At this time, the "Revolutionary Army" or rear-disturbance teams that were fighting in the field were expelled, left, or purged from the JCP, becoming the origin of the New Left. Bad timing followed: In 1956, the Criticism of Stalin occurred, and the Soviet suppression of Hungary lowered the authority of the Communist Party. At the 6th National Conference (Roku-Zen-Kyo) in 1955, perhaps because the Korean War ended and there was no need to disturb Japan militarily, the JCP changed its policy to not openly advocating armed revolution but gaining seats in the diet to prepare for revolution. However, they didn't discard violence; it is still necessary at the final stage or some stage of the revolution. So they adopted the "Enemy's Behavior Theory" (Teki no Dekata Ron). This means they will use violence depending on how the enemy (the state or other parties) acts. For example, during the University Struggles, the JCP formed the "Capital Student Federation Action Squad" (also called the Akatsuki Action Squad) to fight against New Left students to protect universities that were JCP strongholds. After the struggles, when the Action Squad became inconvenient, the JCP kidnapped and confined members to force ideological conversion (purge). This is when the "Enemy's Behavior Theory" is used. In Marxism-Leninism, being the Vanguard Party is more important than the name "Communist Party." Since the JCP, which was supposed to be the Vanguard Party, seemed to be making mistakes or doing the wrong things, the idea that "The JCP is not the Vanguard Party" spread. So, the feeling grew that "We must create a proper Vanguard Party to replace the JCP," leading to the formation of the New Left. The Protagonist of the 1960 Anpo Struggle Was the New Left By the Public Security definition, the "Left" refers to the JCP and those to the left of it. Those to the left of the JCP are called Ultra-Left (Kyokusa). Since the JCP seemed to have lost its qualification as the Vanguard Party, various factions formed to replace it. First, in the late 1950s, the Communist League (Bund)—the parent body of the Red Army Faction (Japanese Red Army, United Red Army)—was formed as the First Bund to crush the 1960 Security Treaty (Anpo). They succeeded in making Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke (Shinzo Abe's grandfather) resign, but the treaty was extended, so the movement failed, and they dissolved. Also, the Revolutionary Communist League (Kakukyodo), the parent of Chukaku-ha (Middle Core Faction) and Kakumaru-ha (Revolutionary Marxist Faction), was formed in the late 50s. This organization upheld Trotskyism rather than Stalinism. In 1960, when the JCP decided to take an independent Japanese route separate from both the Soviet and Chinese Communist Parties, even more New Left groups appeared. So many groups formed that they are referred to as "5 Streams, 13 Factions," or by analogy to martial arts schools, "5 Streams, 24 Factions," but the number was actually much larger, and no one fully grasps the exact number or content. The JCP Remains in the 1955 System (With Some Changes) to This Day If the "Left" refers to the JCP and the Ultra-Left (as per Public Security), what is the Socialist Party (JSP)? Like the LDP, the JSP was a hodgepodge from its inception in 1955. At the 6th National Conference, the JCP integrated its factions (International vs. Mainstream), purged its military wing, and those opposed to the new line left, making the JCP very streamlined. Because the JCP became streamlined, many New Left groups formed, but unlike the JSP (which was inherited by the Democratic Party of Japan, and now the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan [CDP], and parts of the Democratic Party for the People [DPP] and the Social Democratic Party [SDP]), the JCP lost its messiness and continues to this day. This makes it easier to understand. What is the Socialist Party? The Socialist Party has been considered "Left." They probably self-identified as such. After the Cold War, the JSP merged with the LDP or took power, then became the DPJ -> DPP -> DPJ again -> and split into the CDP, DPP, and SDP. The Socialist Party is a hodgepodge. The US was likely involved, perhaps supporting the creation of the Socialist Party in 1955 just as they did the LDP. Initially, the JSP didn't have conservatives or right-wingers like the LDP (I will omit definitions of conservative/right-wing here). Although called the "Socialist Party," it contained two different things: Social Democracy and a Socialist Party aiming for Communism. Social Democrats try to adjust economic equality within capitalism and parliamentarianism. They do not deny democracy or capitalism; they affirm them. You could call it "Modified Capitalism." They do not aim for revolution or a Communist Society. They deal with economic disparity and poverty within democracy and economic liberalism. At this stage, they differ from Marxism-Leninism, Socialism, and Communism. Think of the JSP as: apart from the Social Democrats, the rest aimed for economic equality without being hardcore Marxist-Leninists. Actually, there were hardcore Marxist-Leninists, but they couldn't get in, didn't enter, were kicked out, or left on their own. There is also a stream of German-style communism (Rosa Luxemburg, etc.) rather than Soviet-style. Marx was German, after all. He likely had more German friends than Russians. The troublesome thing about the Socialist Party is that it has a history of being a target for Entryism (Infiltration Tactics) from the New Left. Entryism is the tactic of entering an organization, transforming it from the inside, and hijacking it. It is often more efficient than starting a group from scratch. Generally, organizations other than the JCP are weak. New groups disappear like bubbles. It is faster to hijack an existing organization. Entryism has been around for a long time, but in the communist tradition, it is a Trotskyist tactic. The Socialist Party has historically been used as a target for Entryism. Composition of the Socialist Party The JSP was formed by merging the Right-wing Socialists and Left-wing Socialists. From that flow, the intra-party right was the Structural Reform Faction, and the left was the Kyokai-ha (Socialist Association Faction). Both the JCP and JSP had youth organizations. The JCP has Minsei (Democratic Youth League), and the JSP had Shaseido (Socialist Youth League). Other subordinate organizations include Labor Unions, armies (if aiming for armed revolution, like Chukaku-ha's Revolutionary Army or Kakumaru-ha's Pursuit Squad), intelligence agencies, and covert ops agencies. Controlling universities is important. If you have a base at a university, you can recruit students, expand party membership, infiltrate faculty and staff, and place graduates in various organizations to sow seeds. This is sometimes called "Cells." Though sowing too many cells might be why factions increased. For example, Hosei University is Chukaku-ha; Meiji and Kyushu U were Shaseido Kaiho-ha (Kakurokyo); Todai's student council was JCP Minsei, but for a time in the 80s, the New Left recaptured it (the chairman at that time later became the Mayor of Akashi). Knowing this changes how you view current news. Unions also have JCP routes, but National Railway unions were strong yet chaotic. To weaken them, Nakasone and Kakumaru-ha teamed up to privatize JNR (National Railways), and it is said Kakumaru took over the current JR Soren (JR General Confederation). Or that the state privatized the Post Office and NTT to weaken their unions. People who know, know. You can't understand the DPP or CDP without knowing about Rengo (Japanese Trade Union Confederation) and whether it's Sohyo-based or Domei-based. This isn't necessarily about spies or foreign conspiracies; it's often just that people who lived through it know, but it's not discussed in the media due to "adult circumstances." Foreign spies and conspiracies exist, but often things are labeled as such simply because people don't know the domestic history. If you know the history, you understand "that's just how it is" without needing to blame China, and you stop dividing everything into simply Left or Right. However, you can't say "The Socialist Party isn't Left because it's not the Communist Party" without understanding Entryism. One of the founders of the New Left group Kakukyodo (which split from the JCP) was Ryu Ota, the introducer of Trotskyism to Japan. Kakukyodo was a Trotskyist group. It split several times into Chukaku and Kakumaru, but Ryu Ota split early on into the Fourth International and continued to enforce infiltration tactics into the Socialist Party. "Entryism" (Kanyu-senjutsu - Note: corrected from "Karyu Senju" in source) is a core technique of "Pure Trotskyists" (Jun-Toro - Note: corrected from "Toluene"), so they are thorough. The Socialist Party was a "grass-cutting field" (hunting ground) not just for the Fourth International but for various New Left groups and domestic/foreign entities, so it is impossible to separate the Socialist Party from Communism or the Left. Structural Reform, Kyokai-ha, and Kaiho-ha The Right-wing after the Socialist merger advocated Structural Reform, influenced by Eurocommunism or Antonio Gramsci's "Position War" (War of Position). This is a method of securing positions and advancing little by little. You might say this is the same as Social Democracy, and perhaps it is. Or, if they advance the Position War and do a violent revolution at the very end, it might be no different from the Communist Party. The Socialist Party's Left-wing, Kyokai-ha, were theorists, so they were not unrelated to Socialism, Communism, and Marxism-Leninism. Their leader, Itsuro Sakisaka, according to former communist Eiichi Tanizawa, intended for the Soviet Union to liberate Japan. This is the Leninist tactic of "Defeatism" (Revolutionary Defeatism)—the theory that revolution is easier when one's country loses a war. Then, a third pole appeared, which would become Shaseido Kaiho-ha (also called Kakurokyo). This ultra-left group joined hands with Kyokai-ha to overthrow the Structural Reform Faction. Later, Kyokai-ha split into the theoretical Sakisaka Faction and the practical Ota Faction (associated with the movement on the ground), and the Ota Faction teamed up to weaken the Sakisaka Faction (Sorry, it might be the reverse). In short, like the LDP, it was disorganized. It remains the same today. After the Cold War, they formed a coalition government with the LDP (Murayama Cabinet), changed party policy, lost support, and most flowed into the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). Broadly speaking, the Sakisaka lineage moved to the Socialist Party/Democratic Socialist Party (DSP - conservative-leaning, Domei union base), and combined with the Ota lineage, they shifted to the DPJ. When the LDP/Komeito took power back, they "laundered" the party name to Minshinto, then back to DPJ, then split into the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) and the Democratic Party for the People (DPP). The support base for both is Rengo, but it would be clean if CDP was Sohyo-based and DPP was Domei-based, but it doesn't work that way. Due to electoral reforms and recession, there are people who just want to be politicians regardless of ideology. If they can't run from the LDP but can become (or stay) politicians via the Democratic Party, they don't mind. Therefore, while I touched on the Socialist lineage, the reason why the CDP has its specific vibe or why the DPP supports progressive/core policies that dismantle the family registry system involves all these background circumstances. The Meaning of "Left" Expands Looking at it this way, the JCP is the King of the Left. The New Left ended up with only Chukaku-ha and Kakumaru-ha remaining, so the "flowers of evil" that inherited the old Socialist Party—parts of the CDP and DPP—could be called Leftist because they aim for revolution/communism (via infiltration roots). However, the old Socialist Party is like the Shibuya Scramble Crossing for various organizations, so you can almost ignore it. Depending on your view, you can trace Japan's anti-Japanese or masochistic thought to pre-war Leninism (Anti-Imperialism/Anti-Colonialism), the Soviet "1932 Thesis" (grudge against Japan), post-war GHQ's "War Guilt Information Program," or the 1970 "Kaseito Accusation" (Chinese youth struggle) after the student movement failed. Also, some New Left activists began shifting their direction toward discrimination against Buraku/former colonies, women's rights, Ainu discrimination, Environmentalism, Vegetarianism, Spiritualism, and New Religions. The Left is a political ideology/activity pursuing human economic equality. Marxism-Leninism combined this with practical revolutionary methods and Anti-Imperialism/Anti-Colonialism (which weren't prominent in Marx's time). The goal was: Revolution -> Vanguard Party Dictatorship in backward countries -> Mature Capitalism -> Second Revolution -> Communist Society (no classes, shared production). This has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or the environment. In fact, for a true revolutionary, Lenin argued that such things are petty-bourgeois justice ("Left-Wing Infantile Disorder") that hinder the revolutionary movement. It didn't matter to Marx either. They probably thought small matters would resolve themselves once the big matter was settled. However, Japan went from incredible poverty and devastation after the war to becoming one of the world's richest countries with a "100 million middle-class" society by the 1970s. It was often said, "Japan is the most successful socialist country." In other words, Japan became a success story of the Left, achieving the most human economic equality in history. Despite not being a Communist Society, Socialism and the Left succeeded. Aside from Japan, most advanced countries saw economic gaps shrink and approached equality after WWII until around 1970. Some said "it's not enough," but advanced countries tended to become richer and more equal than China or the USSR. Liberalism, PC, Discrimination, and Environment Enter the Left If Marx's theory were correct, a revolution should have occurred in a country like present-day America. If a revolution occurs in current America and results in a classless society with shared production, Marxism is proven right. Otherwise, Marxism was wrong from the start. We must observe if such a change happens in America. For Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao, discrimination and the environment were trivialities unrelated to theory. So, these things were not in the Socialist ideology of the Marxist-Leninist lineage. However, if the modern ideal is "Equality," then inequality is bad even if it's not economic or human. The USSR lost credibility due to Stalin, Hungary, Prague, Afghanistan, and the Cold War collapse. By the late 1960s/1970s, Marxism-Leninism was dying down in the West. Perhaps because of that, non-Marxist-Leninist Socialism, aiming for equality—specifically Discrimination issues—became trendy. Equality, Discrimination, and Liberty are separate concepts. Since Liberty creates gaps, it might be better to focus on Gap vs. Liberty. Equality, Discrimination, and Inequality (Gap) are all independent events/concepts. Inequality does not necessarily mean there is discrimination or a gap. Discrimination does not necessarily mean there is inequality or a gap. A gap does not necessarily mean there is inequality or discrimination. The Left's misunderstanding is assuming Equality = Good = No Discrimination. Reality is: Equality (Economic) ≠ Non-Discrimination (Human Rights) ≠ Liberty (Political). The USSR had "Equality," but no "Liberty," and it had "Discrimination" (purges). Knowing this or not, discrimination issues became linked to Equality/Socialism. Some people likely woke up to discrimination issues without any Marxist-Leninist background. However, many converted from Marxism-Leninism to discrimination issues. Perhaps because discrimination issues were repressed in Marxism-Leninism as "petty-bourgeois justice," they flowed there. Or, we can consider that the trend of discrimination issues from this period arose from many factors, even if unrelated to Marxism-Leninism. Like a multi-factorial disease. Mixing Like Entropy Although discrimination was alienated in Marxism-Leninism, in the broader view of Left/Socialism, Equality and Discrimination relate easily. Even if independent, they correlate. High correlation coefficient, practically speaking. "Equality" without "Human" and "Economic" relates easily to Discrimination. "If there is discrimination, it is unequal." This feels intuitively correct. The contrapositive, "If equal, there is no discrimination," also feels intuitively correct. You can think of examples where economic inequality doesn't generate discrimination. There are many people richer than the Emperor, but no one discriminates against the Emperor. (Some twisted people might). When you add "Human," it becomes anthropocentric. "Living things are all equal, so we shouldn't eat animals." Some think this way. Ryu Ota, one of the founders of Kakukyodo and the introducer of Trotskyism ("The Bomb Dragon," "Guru of Bomb Struggle," "Guevarista"), began losing interest in revolution/communism in the late 60s and shifted to bomb struggles and Ainu Independence theory in the 70s. He gathered Buddhist monks and Shinto priests to argue that eating livestock is discrimination and preached vegetarianism. He aimed for a "natural way of life." Then he started preaching conspiracy theories: Anti-Freemason, Illuminati, Jews, International Finance Capital. Next, he claimed "Reptilians rule humanity." Setting aside Reptilians, many shifted toward modern Liberalism, PC, Anti-Discrimination, Environmentalism, and Veganism. Activists from Zengakuren and Zenkyoto (horizontal solidarity of New Left/Non-sect radicals) gathered in these directions, like "Naturalists growing organic vegetables." People influenced by this direction include (names partially redacted in source but obvious): Akira Ikegami, the host of "Asa Made Nama TV" (Soichiro Tahara), Hayao Miyazaki, Terry Ito, Mamoru Oshii, Chizuko Ueno, Naoto Kan, Yukio Edano, Banri Kaieda, Yoshito Sengoku, Masaru Sato, Ryuichi Sakamoto, Ryu Murakami, Tokiko Kato, etc. The list is endless. They permeated universities, unions, NPOs, NGOs, religious groups, government offices, local governments, schools, media, academia, parties, and ministries. Shoko Asahara of Aum Shinrikyo used "Poa" (a Tantric term), but it was used as leftist activist slang for killing. The Right is the same; regarding the Unification Church involved in the Abe assassination, they had ties to the CIA for anti-communism. In Italy's "Years of Lead," the Vatican and Mafia were involved. In Japan, Yakuza are involved with both Right and Left. For example, the Yomiuri Shimbun runs through Nabe-Tsune (1947 strike), the Anpo generation, Zenkyoto generation, and Liberal generation. The Right/Conservative side also actively hired students who "crossed the line a bit" (were active), saying "young people should be active." Italy was the same, but with the US, China, USSR, North Korea, South Korea, etc., involved, it's chaotic. But without calling it "foreign spy operations," you can understand a lot just with domestic knowledge. Those Who Are Not Left Have No "Sincere Heart" (Magokoro) Socialism is Justice. It is also Truth. The citizens (and perhaps many regions of the world) thought, and many still think, that if you are not a Socialist, you have no Sincere Heart. People who deny equality are viewed with suspicion. (Though defining "Equality" is hard). Marxism-Leninism, or Communism, is not trendy now. "Sharing means of production" (Communism) is difficult to envision in reality in this pragmatic era. Though with technology, concrete methods might emerge. Communism isn't trendy, but broad Socialism—"Pursuing Equality"—is a theme for the future. The recent trend is Anti-Discrimination/Liberal/PC, which is slightly different from Equality/Socialism, but in the current context, it is "Left." Originally, being Left or Socialist meant Justice, Truth, and Heart, so people did not hide it; they were proud. Now, "Left" might carry a faint image of "Dangerous Person." However, with Neoliberalism and Globalism going too far, we might need the Left/Socialism to try a bit harder. Everything is balance. Until humanity calms down, the Left/Socialism needs to update and strive to be a balancer against Individualism/Liberalism. Everything is best in moderation, but we tend to polarize. Reconciling Liberty and Equality, Individualism and Collectivism, is maturity. Once, GHQ and the US dreamed of "The Left" (Idealism) and made Japan a testing ground. But facing the "Reality" of the Cold War, they converted (Reverse Course). Now, we are dreaming the "New Left Dream" of PC and Environmentalism. Will this too fade before "Reality"? Or will we go as far as Ota Ryu and "Reptilians"? Either way, perhaps only "Cold Reality" (Boring Daily Life) can stop the runaway "Sincere Heart" (Justice).

わかる日本の、左翼、社会主義、共産主義、リベラル

わかる日本の、左翼、社会主義、共産主義、リベラル ・まず分かりやすく左翼とは何か 　国の公安警察か公安調査庁かどっちか忘れましたが「左翼」を定義しています。 　「左翼とは共産党と共産党より左のもの」でこの場合の左翼は共産党です。 　一応誤解の内容に書いておけばこれは公安・警察の“治安用語”で思想史の“左翼一般”とは少し違う部分があるでしょう。 これは公安ですからいわゆる「極左暴力集団」の定義するためのもので社会主義革命・共産主義革命を目指し…暴力で破壊することを企てている集団であり成立経緯として昭和30年代初頭…日本共産党を除名されたり、離党した者が中心となって誕生したものです。 　これは1970年+αくらいまでの日本の歴史と社会を知っていればとてもいい定義です。 　別に1970年+αくらいまでの日本の歴史を知らなくても、知らなくて現代社会だけを見てもなかなか含蓄の深い定義ですが現在の日本は『左翼』という言葉の使われ方がもっと広いです。 　『リベラル』という言葉もよく分からない鵺みたいなところがありますがこれも今では左翼とされているのではないでしょうか。 　言葉の意味も場所や時代で変わっていくのでしょう。 　左翼すなわち平等を考える際の軸を少しだけ挙げておきます。 　座標を決めておくと分かりやすいでしょう。 　本当はもっとあります。 ① 経済軸：市場重視 ↔ 再分配・公的介入重視 ② 政治体制軸：自由主義的民主制 ↔ 前衛党・一党支配など ③ 文化軸：伝統重視 ↔ 反差別・多様性・価値観刷新 ④ 国際軸：ナショナリズム ↔ インターナショナリズム ・まずざっくり 　よのなかざっくり2つの思想がメインです。 1つが資本主義とか自由主義とか市場主義とか交換経済とか民主主義とかそういうのです。 もう1つが左翼とか共産主義とか社会主義とかリベラルと呼ばれるものがあります。 前者は何となくわかると思うので後者のイメージを持つと世の中よく分かります。 ・自由と平等 　なるべく自由を尊重するような社会にとなると資本主義みたいなのになって格差が広がります。 　格差=不平等ではないし、差別でもないのですがなるべく経済的な平等を達成しようというのが社会主義とか共産主義とかになります。 　世の中の経済的平等を人間の目指すのが左翼なのですがそういうのをおいといてとりあえず平等を目指すのがリベラルになります。 ・社会主義のながれ 　人間の経済的平等の追及は社会主義と呼ばれてもともとありましたが19世紀中ごろにマルクスが出て20世紀にはレーニンとかが革命を起こしてこれが左翼の代表になりました。 　名付けてマルクス・レーニン主義と言います。 ・マルクス・レーニン主義 　マルクス・レーニン主義では社会の最終的到達点が決まっています。 　それを共産主義社会と言います。 　共産主義社会になると全ての社会的階級とか支配、被支配がなくなって生産手段はみんなで共有することになります。 　この体制は現代では達成した国はありません。 　小さな組織でいいのであればイスラエルのキブツという小さなコミュニティはそんな感じでしたが今もあるのか分かりません。 ・マルクスは素朴、レーニンは素朴でいられない 　マルクスは共産主義社会になるのは歴史の必然と思っていました。 　資本主義が成熟すると自然に共産主義になると思っていました。 　レーニンと仲間たちは資本主義が成熟しても世の中共産主義化しないことに気付いてしまいました。 　世の中が豊かになると労働者も豊かになってしまいます。 　例えばある程度豊かになると別に経済的に平等でなくても生産手段を共有しなくてもいいという感じになります。 　そもそも本来差別とかは本チャンの左翼である共産主義者のテーマではないのですが差別についても上も下もどうでもよくなってきます。 　別の例では資本主義が発展してくると帝国主義や植民地主義というのも発展していきました。 　すると植民地を持っている国の国民は豊かになって左翼とかどうでもよくなります。 　さらに別の例では戦争が起こると、一番いい例では第一次世界大戦みたいなのがおこるとやっぱり国民は平等とか差別とかどうでもよくなります。 　戦争とか真剣に戦っているときには平等とか差別とかどうでもよくなります。 　むしろ愛国心とか負けたらあかんというので不平等とか差別どころではなくなります。 　というわけで革命を起こしたロシア（とドイツ）以外の社会党は第一次世界大戦で壊滅してしまいました。 　そういうわけで世の中自然に共産主義社会になるわけではないので人為的に国民をコントロールして共産主義社会似せなあかんというのがレーニン主義になります。 ・レーニンの人為主義共産主義社会化 　平等というのはよく考えると分かりにくいです。 　もっと限定して生産手段を全ての人が共有する、経済的格差をなくして平等にする、ここまで具体的に限定してもそらがどんなものかはいまいち分かりません。 　社会人したことがある人にはわかると思いますが（社会人したことがない人をディ吸っているわけではありません）具体的な実務というのは難しいです。 　具体的にどういう実務勝利を行ってそれを達成するのかとか、達成するべき社会の政治、経済、法律、制度はどんなものとか、問題が発生したときのトラブルシューティングはどうするとか挙げていけばキリがありません。 　原稿の全ての社会はそういうことで苦労している人が必ずいるはずです。 　左翼の理想は人間の経済的平等ですが実際にうまくやって他の社会主義にも影響を与えたのはマルクス・レーニン主義なのでそれだけ分かれば十分です。 ・社会主義と共産主義の違い 　社会主義は人間の経済的平等を実現するために頑張る主義です。 　だから社会主義を頑張っているときには人間の経済的な平等は実現していません。 　共産主義は人間の経済的平等が達成されてさらに階級（身分差）もなく生産手段が全ての人に共有化されることを目指すということです。 ・社会主義社会と共産主義社会の違い 　社会主義は共産主義を実現するために頑張っている状態なので歴史上共産主義国と言われるものは現在の中国とかを含めて社会主義社会で、社会主義体制で、社会主義国です。 　過去の共産主義国と言われた国にせよ現在の中国にせよ全て社会主義国です。 　共産主義社会を実現した共産主義国は歴史上一つもありません。 　現在までに実現しているのは共産主義社会を目指して頑張っている社会主義国しか今のところありません。 ・社会党と共産党の違い 　社会党は人間の社会的平等を目指している政党です。 　ただここら辺は意見がまとまらない面があります。 　社会主義も社会党もマルクス以前からありましたしマルクス・レーニン主義とは違う流れがあります。 　日本の社会党については後で説明します。 　共産党も人間の経済的平等を目指す点では社会党と一緒です。 　共産党とか共産主義とかの発明はマルクスレーニン主義です。 　共産主義は人間が経済的に平等の他に経済的でない部分でも管理者と非管理者の違いがないという点で社会主義と一言でいうよりはより具体的です。 これは階級がないとか言います。 また生産手段を全員で共有するという点でも社会主義よりは具体的です。 マルクスは「共産党宣言」というのをかいていますから共産党という言葉を広めたのはマルクスです。 共産主義の発明もマルクスでいいでしょう。 それを改良したのがレーニンと仲間たちと見ればいいでしょう。 ・共産党より大事なのは前衛党と革命 　そもそも名前なんかどうでもよくて中身が大切だという考え方もありあす。 　レーニン主義ではそもそも共産主義社会は自然には起こらないので一生懸命共産主義社会を実現させようとする必要があります。 　あとマルクスレーニン主義で大切なのは世の中を変えるには革命が必要であるということです。 　革命はほっておいても勝手に起こらないのです。 　ここはマルクスもレーニンも賛成したくないところではあると思いますがそもそも世の中が変わってもそれが共産主義社会でない可能性もありますしそもそも歴史の最終地点があるという前提が間違っている可能性もあります。 　そういう大きな考え方を持っていた方が物事分かりやすいし整理もしやすいのでそういう広い視野も持っておくといいでしょう。 　それはともかくマルクスレーニン主義では革命の前衛をになうただ一つしかない前衛党が革命を起こして世の中を共産主義社会に移行させるために努力していくというのが一番大切になります。 　ですので社会党とか共産党とか党の名前よりは革命の前衛を担う政党、前衛党であるということがマルクスレーニン主義では最も大事なことになります。 　マルクスレーニン主義で大切というよりマルクスレーニン主義の主張する枠組みの中で前衛党に加わって革命を指導したいという革命家にとって前衛党党員であることが最も大切なことになります。 ・共産党はレーニンが社会党に呆れて作った 　共産党を作ったのはレーニンです。 　「マルクスが『共産党宣言』という本を出したといったやないか」というつっこみがあるかもしれません。 　まあそうなのですが適当に読み流してください。 　左翼の歴史では第一次世界大戦が大きな節目になります。 　「ロシア革命がおこったからあたり前やんけ」と突っ込まれるかもしれませんがそれはまあそうです。 　まあそれはいいとして第一次世界大戦で欧州各国の社会党が人間の平等より戦争に勝つことに夢中になって「人間の経済的平等」が後回しになって各国の社会党の連帯もなくなってしまいました。 　この時「人間て経済的な平等より愛国心や戦争に勝ちたいという気持ちの方が強いのやな」と気づいてしまったのが当時イタリアナンバーワンの社会主義者とも評されたムッソリーニでここからファシズムが発生するのは豆知識です。 　まあそれはともかく各国社会党のていたらくに激怒したレーニンがボリシェビキから「共産党」と名付けたのがまあ現代の共産党の始まりと思って下さい。 　「俺たちは欧州各国の情けない社会党と違うんだぞ」と社会党と区別するために着けた党名みたいなイメージでいいと思います。 ・いったん整理する 　「左翼」は広くは人間の平等を唱える考え方です。 　ですから言葉の発祥は「自由、平等、博愛」を掲げたフランス革命から始まっています。 　社会主義はマルクス以前からありますがこれも平等主義な考え方です。 　マルクス以降は平等だけではなく「階級もなく経済的に平等で生産手段の共有化」というのが付きます。 　そもそも「平等」という言葉が曖昧です。 　ただ当時は、今もそうかもしれませんがお金やら金持ちか貧乏かとかお金で何でも判断する考え方が強かった（今でも強いかも）なのでお金に意識というか頭のリソースを多くとられている人にとっては「平等」というと「お金の平等」とか「格差」とか「貧困」とか「金持ちけしからん」みたいなのが短絡的につながってしまいやすいのかもしれません。 　マルクスはレーニンから見ればやや能天気で「今の資本主義社会がどんどん発達すれば勝手に共産主義社会になる」みたいなお花畑な考え方をしていました。 　ただ時代が進んでいくとマルクスの提唱したマルクス主義の様に考えていたようにいかない兆候がいっぱい出てきます。 　レーニンとしてはそれでは困るので力技で革命を起こした、あるいは革命に乗っかったわけです。 　第一次世界大戦ではいくつか革命がおこりました。 　例えばドイツです。 　でも共産主義を目指す方向の革命になってまあ成功したと言えるのはロシアだけでした。 　ドイツの場合は帝政から共和制になっています。 　ドイツの方がロシアより全然資本主義が進んでいたのですが。 　ロシアの場合はレーニンをはじめいろんな人たちが革命を共産主義の実現に近づけるように努力してああいう風になったわけです。 　といってもとりあえず革命は起こったわけですがその後は革命後の路線の違いやらそもそも革命に反対の勢力やらで内戦していたので全然社会主義者だけが革命を行ったわけでもないし革命後から社会主義者が国を治めていたわけでもありません。 　内戦がおこりますがまあトロツキーのような英雄がいたからかどうかは分かりませんが共産党がロシアの政権を取ることに成功してソビエト連邦となります。 ・現実は理想の様にはいかない 　ソ連は共産主義体制ではありませんが共産主義を目指すのが建前というか大義名分です。 　ただロシアのような成熟した資本主義どころではない農奴制の国が共産主義をめざすとなると簡単にはいきません。 　そもそもマルクス主義に従えばまず国を成熟した資本主義国にしないといけません。 　ただレーニン主義ではマルクス理論のように自然に資本主義が発展して成熟するというのがもう無理です。 　無理なのでレーニン主義では前衛党であるソ連共産党が国や国民を指導して成熟した資本主義の国にするという話になります。 　ただそれは難しいことです。 　そもそも帝政ロシア時代にすでにどの程度資本主義化しようとしていたのかは分かりませんが国を近代化しようと皇帝からして頑張っています。 　まだ統制が利いて秩序があった革命前の方がうまく資本主義化を進められた可能性すらあります。 　帝政ロシアの時代もちゃんと改革を行っていますし、スピードが遅いとかいう意見もあるかもしれませんが徐々に近代化は進んでいっていました。 　それが第一次世界大戦で実質的に負けるわ、革命後の内戦はめちゃくちゃ大変だったりするわ、レーニン後に権力を握ったのがライバルのトロツキーをのしてのスターリンでそのスターリンが悪政を敷きまくるわ第二次世界大戦はあるわ、西側諸国には嫌われまくって国際的に孤立の面が強いわでそもそも資本主義の成熟化どころか資本主義化もできず経済政策も悪かったので貧乏国のままでした。 ・「共産主義国」はややこしい 　歴史上共産主義社会の国はないのでソ連は共産主義国ではありません。 　ソ連は社会主義国です。 　ただ「共産主義国を目指す国」を共産主義国と言っていいなら共産主義国です。 　さらにソ連は共産党一党独裁の国です。 　共産党が国より上位にあって国を支配しているという意味ではそもそも共産主義社会が何かを知らなければソ連は共産主義と呼びたくなる気持ちも分かります。 　更には左翼全般そうですがプライドが高くてかっこつけたがるところがあります。 　そういうのをレーニンは左翼小児病とか言って（厨二病の語源とおもわれます）、プチブル的な感情は捨て非常に徹するべき、という感じなのですがこの中二病的な感じは慢性病らしく現在の中共に至るまで治りません。 　プライドが高いので社会主義国と名乗るよりは共産主義国と名乗った方がかっこいいのでそう名乗りたくなる気持ちも分かります。 　逆に自由主義諸国では「共産」とつくものは悪口です。 　ソ連が社会主義国というよりは「ソ連は共産主義国」と言ってレッテルを張って悪口を言った方が気持ちいいです。 　何かそういうことかどうか分かりませんがソ連も冷戦期の東側陣営も現代中国も「共産主義国」と言われることが多いです。 　まあ言葉なんて場所や時代や状況で意味を変えたり変わったり定義をしっかりすべき時にしっかりしさえすれば何でもいいと思いますがそんないろいろな思惑がかみ合って「共産国」とかいう言葉が使われています。 　ただ問題は1970年頃に顕在化してきたのですが「そもそも左翼は本当に共産主義社会を作る気があるのか？」というものになっていきます。 　 ・2段階革命論 そもそもロシアみたいな国は成熟した資本主義国ではないのでマルクス主義が当てはまりません。 マルクスは資本主義が成熟してない国は革命しても失敗して余計経済的独占と格差がひどくなると書いています。 ロシアの革命家にロシアで革命出来るか聞かれた際には歯切れの悪い返答だったと記憶してます。 　それで力技で共産主義社会を目指そうとしてレーニン主義というものが生まれます。 　レーニン主義はマルクス主義はは使えないのでいろいろ別の理論を作ったり現実に対応したり実務を大切にしたりして力技で共産主義を作ろうとした考え方です。 　レーニン後の後継者争いでスターリンとトロツキーでもめます。 結局スターリンが勝ったのですがこのあたりから本当に共産主義を目指す気があるのかが怪しくなっていきます。 そもそもロシアは革命後のすぐに共産主義社会を実現することはできませんでした。 そこから共産主義社会に持っていくには何かしなければいけません。 そこで二段階革命論というのができます。 一段階目で共産党一党独裁で資本主義の成熟化を進めてそのあともう一回革命を起こして今度こそ共産党も被支配階級もなくなり経済的に平等で生産手段を共有する共産主義社会を作るというものです。 　そこで共産党の一党独裁でノーメンクラツーラが支配して経済を成熟させていくということになるのですがなぜかどの国もここで止まってしまいます。 　ソ連も中国も共産党の一党独裁が成功した後共産党員がどんどん特権階級になり豊かになりその他の国民と格差が広がるということになってしまいました。 　この二段階革命論は戦前の日本共産党の講座派と労農派の分派化の原因になります。 　ですので日本の共産党史でも大切なことです。 　講座派はこれから2回革命を行わないといけないという考え方です。 　これは考えたというより世界共産党であるソ連共産党の見解に従順でした。 　コミュンテルンの32年テーゼというものがあってそれを講座派は丸のみです。 　労農派は明治維新で第一段階の革命は終わっているから次は最後の革命をすればいいだけというソ連から離れた日本の独自路線でした。 　この対立は形を変えて戦後の国際派と所感派の対立に持ち越されます。 　間の期間に戦争があったので断絶がありますが。 ・共産党堕落 　共産党の一党独裁になったら逆にその後の共産主義社会の樹立を進めるという方向にはいきませんでした。 　ソ連も中国もそうです。 　ソ連についてはちゃんと共産主義社会を作ろうとしている国の邪魔を行っています。 　ハンガリー動乱とプラハの春です。 　ハンガリーでは共産党の一党独裁になったので労働者がその次の革命を行って生産手段の共有化と階級格差をなくそうとしたらソ連が軍隊でそれを潰してしまいました。 　プラハの春では共産党の一党独裁になった後資本主義を成熟させようとしたらやはりソ連が武力でつぶしてしまいました。 　なかなか権力の甘い汁を吸うとそれを手放すのは嫌になるのでしょう。 　日本が特殊で明治維新のように武士が自分から特権を捨てたようには普通はいきません。 　特にスターリン期のソ連がひどくて共産党どころかスターリンの一国独裁体制を進めたものの逆に国力が低下してしまいました。 　中国もひどくて毛沢東が文化大革命というマルクスレーニン主義とは異なる変なことを始めました。 　これは毛沢東は革命を起こすのは上手でも革命後の共産主義社会の実現の作業には向いていなかったと思われます。 　あるいは共産党だのマルクスレーニン主義だのを分かっていなかった可能性があります。 　毛沢東は革命家としては優秀なのですが共産主義やらマルクスレーニン主義を理解していなかった可能性があります。 　革命屋だったのかもしれません。 ・日本共産党は優秀 　社会主義運動は戦前から盛んでマルクスレーニン主義も早くから取り入れて日本に左翼が増えていきました。 　日本共産党もソ連の助けもあってちゃんとできました。 　でも内ゲバリンチ事件やら権力の介入やら戦争の挙国一致体制でいったん下火になります。 　戦後はGHQが共産党に好意的で牢屋に入れられていた共産主義者を釈放しました。 　政治犯だけでなくて普通の傷害致死の刑事犯罪で入獄していたのちの共産党書記長の宮本けんじもどさくさに紛れて出獄できました。 　1947年には早速ゼネラルストライキをしようとしますがGHQが止めました。 　そもそもアメリカやGHQ自体にだいぶ左翼が多かったのですがゼネストは数百万人参加しそうでそんなんやられたら占領政策がうまくいきません。 　その時共産党から離れたのが読売新聞のナベツネだったり日本テレビの氏家だったりします。 　ナベツネは共産党で培った技術で社会的な成功を収めたはいいのですが右傾化していってしまいました。 　1950年には朝鮮戦争が起きました。 　その前には中国が共産主義化してしまいました。 　ここらへんでアメリカはやばいと思い始めました。 　日本がいなくなったら日本の統治していた地域がどんどん左翼化していってしまいました。 　アメリカは日本の代わりにアジアの共産主義化を防がねばならないようになってしまいました。 　ここでアメリカもGHQも戦前日本が言っていた「日本はアジアを共産主義社会にしないために頑張っているだけだ」という主張を受け入れざるを得なくなってしまいました。 　アメリカは日本にむかついていたので日本を永久にフィリピン以下の経済力の国にする予定だったのですが路線転換します。 　日本を防共の砦にする戦略に変えました。 　朝鮮戦争がはじまるとソ連共産党下の組織であるコミュンフォルムが日本で内戦を起こすように指示してきて共産党はそれにのってしまいます。 　内戦というほどのものは起こせませんでしたが内乱というか武装蜂起というか武装闘争で日本国内で警官を殺したり工作隊を作ったりして攪乱というか騒擾運動をはじめました。 　1955年朝鮮戦争が終わると日本も武装闘争を止めました。 　そして宮本顕二が実権を取り以後40年間共産党の書記長に君臨します。 　その後同じ1955年に社会党の左派と右派が合併して統一社会党ができて保守の側では自由党と民主党が合併していわゆる戦後の55年体制ができました。 　この時共産党の現場で戦っていたというかあちこち襲っていた革命軍というか後方攪乱チームを共産党から除名されたり離反したり粛清されたり〇されたりして共産党を離れて新左翼の元になります。 　間の悪いことに1956年にはスターリン批判が起こりソ連のハンガリー動乱武力平定が起こって共産党の権威が下がってしまいました。 　1955年の六全共というのがあって朝鮮戦争も追わって日本を武力で引っ掻き回す必要もなったためかそれまでの武力革命方針を表に出さずに議会で議席をとってこつこつ革命の準備をしていこうという路線にかわりました。 　とはいっても暴力を捨てたわけではなく革命の最後の段階やどっかの段階では暴力は必要になります。 　というわけで『敵の出方論』というのを採用しました。 　権力であれ他党であれ敵の出方によっては暴力を使うという路線です。 　例えば大学紛争の時には共産党の拠点である大学を守るため共産党は都学連行動隊（あかつき行動隊とも呼ばれる）を作って新左翼の学生たちと大学を守るために戦いました。 　大学紛争のあとは都学連行動隊の存在が都合が悪くなったので都学連行動隊のメンバーを粛正するために拉致監禁し思想の強制を行いました。 　こういう時に使うのが敵の出方論です。 　マルクスレーニン主義では共産党という名称よりは前衛党であるかが重要です。 　革命の前衛党であったはずの日本共産党がドジばかりしているというか間違ったことばかりしている（ように見えた）ので「共産党は前衛党ではない」という考えが広まりました。 　そこで共産党に変わるちゃんとした前衛党を作らないとなって新左翼というものができていったという感じです。 ・1960年安保闘争の主役は新左翼 　公安の定義では左翼は共産党と共産党より左のものを指します。 　共産党より左の者は極左と呼ばれます。 　また共産党が前衛党としての資格を失ったように見えたので共産党に変わろうといろいろな党派ができました。 　まず1950年代後半には共産主義者同盟（ブント、日本赤軍や連合赤軍などの赤軍派の母体でもある）が第一次ブントとして1960年安保を粉砕するために戦いました。 　安倍首相のおじいさんの岸信介を辞任させるのには成功したのですが日米安保は延長してしまい運動が失敗したので解散です。 　また中核派と革マル派の母体である革命的共産主義者同盟（革共同）ができたのも1950年代後半です。 　これはスターリン主義ではなくトロツキー主義を掲げる組織です。 　1960年に共産党がソビエト共産党とも中国共産党とも離れて日本独自路線をとることにするとさらに新左翼のグループは増えていきます。 　めちゃめちゃな数ができたので伝統芸能や武術で分派が多いことを表す5流13派とかそれになぞらえて5流23派とか5流24派とか言われますがもっと数が多くて正確な数も内容も把握しきれていません。 ・共産党は55年体制のまま（ちょっとした変化はあったが）今に至る 　公安が言うように左翼が共産党と極左を指すなら社会党は一体何でしょうか？ 　現在と同じく自民党も社会党もそもそも1955年の結党当初から寄せ集めと考えてもらって構いません。 　1955年の六全共で国際派や所感派といった分派の統合を行い、共産党の中の暴力革命を担う軍部を粛正したり六全共路線に反対の人々が離脱したことで共産党は非常にすっきりしました。 　共産党がすっきりした分新左翼がいっぱいできましたが共産党は自民党や現在は立憲民主党（と一部は国民民主党と社民党）に引き継がれた社会党とは違って共産党はごちゃごちゃしていたところがなくなって今に至ると考えると分かりやすいです。 ・社会党とは何か？ 　社会党とは左翼と思われてきました。 　社会党もそう辞任していたのではないでしょうか。 　社会党は冷戦崩壊後は自民党とくっついたり政権を取ったりしていましたがその後民主党→民進党→もう一度民主党→立憲民主党と国民民主党と社民党となって現在に至ります。 　社会党は寄せ集めです。 　多分アメリカあたりが絡んだと思いますが1955年に自民党と作ったりもしかしたら社会党を作るのにも支援や援助を行っていたかもしれません。 　当初の社会党は流石に自民党のように保守や右翼はいなかったと思います。 　保守や右翼の定義はここでは省きます。 　社会党と言っても党名が何を表すのかは小難しいのですが社会民主党と共産主義を目指す社会主義政党としての社会党があって両者は違うものです。 　社民党は資本主義や議会主義の中で経済的平等を調整していく政党です。 　民主主義や資本主義は否定しないしむしろ肯定します。 　修正資本主義とでもいえばいいでしょうか。 　革命とか共産主義社会を目指しません。 　あくまで民主主義と議会と経済的自由主義の中で経済的な格差やら貧困に対応していく考え方でこの段階でマルクス主義ともレーニン主義とも違いますし社会主義と共産主義とも違います。 　社会党というと社民党以外の部分はバリバリのマルクスレーニン主義ではないけど経済的平等を目指すみたいな感じでとらえておくといいかもしれません。 　実はバリバリのマルクスレーニン主義者もいますがそこに入れなかったり入らなかったり追い出されたり自分から出ていった人かもしれません。 　ソ連流ではなくドイツ流の共産主義を目指したローザルクセンブルグなどの流れもあります。 　そもそもマルクスはドイツ人です。 　ロシア人よりドイツ人の知り合い友達の方が多かったでしょう。 　社会党の厄介なところは新左翼から加入戦術を受けまくりな政党ということです。 　加入戦術というのはその組織に入って中から組織を変質させてその組織ごと乗っ取るという戦術です。 　1からグループ立ち上げるよりはこっちの方が効率的である場合が多いです。 　大体共産党以外は組織が弱いです。 　新しく立ち上げても泡沫のように消えていきます。 　すでに組織があるならそれを乗っ取れるならのっとってしまうのが早いです。 　加入戦術は昔からありますが共産主義的な伝統でいえばトロツキーの戦術です。 　社会党は加入戦術の的として使われ続けてきた歴史があります。 ・社会党の構成 　社会とは元も右派社会党と左派社会党というのがあったのですがそれらを合併してできました。 　その時の流れから党内右派は構造改革派、党内右派派は協会派といいます。 　共産党も社会党も下部組織として大学生などの若者からなる組織があります。 　共産党は民青（民主青年委員会か何かの略）と言われる組織で社会党は社青同（社会主義青年同盟）かなんかと言います。 　その他に下部組織としては労働組合関係の組織があったり武力革命を目指すなら軍隊があったり（中核派の革命軍、革マル派の求殺隊などが有名）、諜報機関があったり、工作機関があったりします。 　大学を握るというのは大切です。 　大学に拠点を持っていれば学生の勧誘（オルグ、リクルート）をして党員拡大を図れますし、さらに浸透を進めて大学の教職員やら事務員に浸透できますし、卒業生をいろいろな組織に就職させることであちこちに種がまかれます。 　「細胞」ということもあります。 　もっとも細胞をまきすぎたせいで分派が増えるのかもしれませんが。 　例えば法政大学は中核派だし明治や九大は社青同解放派（革労協）だし東大の自治会は京斎藤の民青だけども1980年代の一時期新左翼が奪還してその時の委員長が明石市長をやっていたりなど現在のニュースの見え方が違ってきます。 　労組だって共産党経路の労組もあるけど国鉄系の労組は強かったが乱立していたのでそれを弱体化させるために革マルと中曽根が手を組んで国鉄民営化し現在のJR総連は革マルが取ったとか郵便局などの全逓や電電公社（NTTやau）の労組を弱体化させるために国が民営化を行ったのではないかなどの見方もできるのでそういうのは知っている人は知っているし知らしめようも大人の事情でメディアなどでは離せない場合もあります。 　国民民主とか立憲民主とかも連合やらそれが総評系とか同盟系とかいろいろ事情を知らないと分かりません。 　こういうのスパイとか陰謀とか工作とか外国の干渉というよりたまたま長生きしていた李何かで知る日買いがあれば知っている人は知っているだけの話になります。 　外国のスパイや工作や陰謀もあるのですがそれ以前に「知らないからスパイや陰謀」というだけの場合もあり最近だとAIなどですぐ調べられますからまず国内のいろんなことを知っているだけでもいろいろ違います。 　別に中国やらどこやらがスパイ活動しなくてその人の経歴やその組織の歴史を知っていれば別に中国を抜きにしてもそういうものというのが分かりますし何でもかんでも左や右で分けてしまうこともなくなるでしょう。 　でも共産党より左ではないから社会党は左翼ではない、とも言いきれないのが加入戦術を知らないと分かりません。 　新左翼の共産党から分離した革同共はトロツキー主義の日本の導入者太田竜が創始者のひとりで革同協はトロツキストのグループでもあります。 　何回か分派して中核や革マルなどになっていますが太田竜は早々に第四インターに分派して社会党への潜入工作を徹底させ続けました。 　下流千寿とといえば純トロ（トルエンではなくトロツキー）が本家みたいなものですのでやり方が徹底しています。 　社会党は第四インターどころではなくいろいろな新左翼をはじめ国内外のいろいろな魑魅魍魎の草刈り場みたいなところでしたので社会党を共産主義や左翼から切り離すのは不可能です。 ・構造改革派、協会派、解放か 　社会党合同後の右派は構造改革はでユーロコミュニズムというかアントニオグラム氏などの陣地戦略を唱えていたそうです。 　陣地戦略とは少しずつ陣地を確保し前進させていくやり方です。 　それは社会民主主義と一緒ではないかと言われるかもしれませんが、そうかもしれません。 　あるいは陣地戦術を進めて最後の最後に暴力革命をするなら共産党と変わらないかもしれません。 　社会党左派の協会派は理論家なので普通に社会主義、共産主義、マルクスレーニン主義とは無縁ではありません。 　指導者の向坂逸郎は元共産主義者の谷沢永一に言わせるとソ連が日本を解放してくれるのを意図していたようです。 　これはレーニン主義の敗戦亡国論という戦術で戦争に負けた時、負けそうなときには革命を起こしやすいという理論です。 　そして第三極としてのちに社青同解放派になる、これは革労協とも言いますが極左グループがあってここと協会派が手を結んで構造改革派を打倒してしまいます。 　その後に協会派は分裂して理論派の向坂派と実践派で活動現場主義の太田派に分かれて太田派と組んで向坂派を弱体化させます（すみません、逆かもしれません）。 　要するに自民党と同じでまとまりがない感じです。 　それは今も同じで結局冷戦後には自社さと連立政権を組んで党の方針を変えてしまったので支持を失い民主党ができて大部分がそちらに流れます。 　大まかに向坂派系統が社会党、民社党という同盟系の労組を支持基盤にする保守よりな政党も昔はあったのですがそれと合わせて太田派系統の人たちは民主党の移った感じの様です。 　自公連立などに政権を取り返されると政党名もロンダリングして民進党になり、その後民主党に名前を変えて 2010年前後には政権を取ることに成功しましたが自壊みたいになりました。 そしてまたマネーロンダリングみたいに立憲民主党と名前を変えてそこから国民民主党が分裂して現在に至る感じです。 立民も国民も支持基盤が連合ですが立民の方が総評系の労組で国民民主が同盟系の労組ときれいに分かれればいいのですがそうもいきません。 選挙制度改革やら不景気のため主義主張よりも政治家になりたい人もいます。 　自民党などで出られなければ民主党でも政治家になれるなら、あるいは政治家でいられるならいいやという人もなく参います。 　そのようなわけで社会党系にはざっと触れましたが立憲民主党のノリや国民民主党がなぜ戸籍制度を壊すような進歩的、核心的政策を支持しているかというとまあそういうもろもろがあります。 ・左翼の意味が広がる 　こうしてみていくと共産党が左翼の王様で新左翼が結果的に中核派や革〇派しか残っていないのでそのあだ花のようなもの、旧社会党を引き継いだ立憲民主党と国民民主党の一部は革命と共産主義を目指しているので左翼と言えるかもしれません。 　ただ旧社会党は国内外いろんな組織の渋谷のスクランブル交差点みたいなものですのでまあ無視してもいいです。 　見ようによっては戦前から、レーニン主義からの反帝国主義、反植民地主義、民族主義でもいいですし、日本に恨みを持つソ連の32年テーゼでもいいですし、戦後のＧＨＱのwar guilt programでもいいし、学生運動敗北後の1970年の華青闘告発でもいいですが、もともと日本には反日思想や自虐思想がありました。 　また部落やら旧植民地人への差別、女性差別、アイヌ差別、環境主義、菜食主義、スピリチュアルや新興宗教ブームの方向へ一部の新左翼の活動家をはじめとした人々が思考や運動の方向を変え始めます。 　左翼とは人間の経済的平等を追求する政治思想や活動です。 　マルクス・レーニン主義はそれに革命の実践的方法やマルクスの時には目立たなかった帝国主義や植民地主義を組み合わせたものです。 　そして革命によってまずは遅れた国なら革命の前衛党が一党独裁体制を作って国を成熟資本主義社会に進歩させて革命第二弾で前衛党もその他の人も区別なく階級の違いがなく生産手段を共有した社会を完成させることです。 　これと差別や環境は全く関係ありません。 　むしろ真の革命家にとってはそういうものはプチブルジョワージー的な小さな正義感で革命運動の邪魔になるとレーニンは唱えています。 　マルクスにとってもどうでもいいことです。 　小事は大事が片付けば勝手に解決するとかどうにでも対応できると思っていたのかもしれません。 　ところが日本は戦後の信じられないほどの貧困欠乏国土の交配と国の壊滅から1970年代にはなぜか世界トップクラスの豊かでしかも一億総中流社会になってしまいました。 　「日本は最も成功した社会主義国である」と昔からよく言われるほどになってしまいました。 　つまり歴史上人類で最も成功した人間の経済的平等を達成した国、左翼の成功例のようになってしまいました。 　別に共産主義社会ではないのに左翼と社会主義が成功してしまいました。 　別に日本以外でも第二次世界大戦ではどの国も経済的格差が縮まり平等に近づいてそれが1970年頃まで続いた感じでした。 　「まだ足りない」という人もいたがなぜか中国やソ連より格差の少ない豊かな国に先進国はなってしまった傾向があります。 ・リベラルやポリコレ、差別問題や環境問題が左翼にはいってしまう 　 　本来のマルクスの理論なら現在のアメリカのような国で革命が起こって社会が変わればマルクス理論の答え合わせができたはずです。 　現在のアメリカで革命が起こりかつその後の社会が階級がなくなって生産手段も共有化するようになればマルクス主義が正しかったことが実証されます。 　それ以外の場合はマルクス主義がそもそも間違っていたということになります。 　これからアメリカでそのような変化が起こるのかは要観察です。 　マルクスにとってもレーニンにとってもスターリンとトロツキーにとっても毛沢東にとっても差別や環境はどうでも些事でしたし理論や主義とはそもそも関係ないものでした。 　なのでそういうものはマルクスレーニン主義系譜の社会主義思想には入っていません。 　ただ近代の理想が平等とすると別に人間でなくても経済的な問題でなくても不平等はあかんということになります。 　ソ連はスターリン、ハンガリー動乱、プラハの春、アフガン侵攻、冷戦崩壊と信用は崩壊していくばかりでしたが1960年末頃から1970年頃にはマルクスレーニン主義は少なくとも西洋先進国では下火になりました。 　そのせいかマルクスレーニン主義でない社会主義、平等を目指すというか差別問題が流行りになっていきます。 　平等、差別、自由はそれぞれ別の概念です。 　自由は格差を生むという意味では自由より格差に焦点を当てた方がいいかもしれません。 　平等、差別、格差は全て別の独立事象で独立概念です。 　別に不平等なら差別があるとも格差があるとも限りません。 　差別があるなら不平等とも格差があるとも限りません。 　格差があるなら不平等とも差別があるとも限りません。 　左翼の誤解は平等 ＝ 善 ＝ 差別のない状態という思い込みですが、現実は平等（経済） ≠ 非差別（人権） ≠ 自由（政治）で ソ連は「平等」だったが、「自由」はなく、「差別（粛清）」はありました。 　そういうのを知ってか知らずか差別問題が平等とか社会主義となぜか結びついてしまいました。 　結びつかずにもともとマルクスレーニン主義ではなく思想がない状態から差別問題に目覚めた人もいたでしょう。 　しかし多くはなぜかマルクスレーニン主義から差別問題に転向しました。 　マルクスレーニン主義では差別のようなプチブル的な正義感というか左翼小児病みたいなのに気を取られて革命や共産主義社会の本分から外れてはいかんと差別問題が抑圧されていたからかもしれません。 　またこの時期からの差別問題の流行はマルクスレーニン主義とはが仮に関係なかったとしてももっといろいろなたくさんの要因から起こったと考えることもできます。 　病気でいえば他因子疾患という感じでしょうか。 　 ・エントロピー増大のように混ざる 　マルクスレーニン主義では疎外されていた差別問題ですがもっと広い左翼や社会主義の考え方からすると平等と差別は関係しやすいです。 　本来独立な関係ないものとしても実際には関係しやすいです。 　現実的には相関係数が高いとでもいうべきでしょうか。 　「人間の経済的平等」の「人間の」「経済的」を除いたただの平等は差別と関係しやすいです。 　「差別があるなら不平等である」これは何となく腹に落ちやすい感じです。 　これの対偶「平等なら差別がない」これも何となく腹に落ちやすい感じです。 　経済的な不平等が必ずしも差別を生まない例はちょっと考えればわかると思います。 　世の中天皇陛下より金持ちはたくさんいると思いますが天皇陛下を差別する人はいないのではないでしょうか。 　ちょっとこじれた人は天皇陛下を差別するということもあるかもしれませんが。 　「人間の」とつくと人間中心主義になりがちです。 　「生き物はみな平等だから動物を食べてはいけない」こう考える人もいるかもしれません。 　革同協（中核派や革マル派の母体）の創始者のひとりでトロスキー主義導入のの第一人者の「トロツキスト」「爆弾の竜」「爆弾狂（闘争）の教祖」「ゲバリスタ（ゲバラ主義であってゲバルト主義ではない）」は1960年後半ごろから段々革命とか共産主義への興味が薄れていったようで1970年代の爆弾闘争やアイヌ独立論みたいな方向にシフトしていきます。 　また家畜を食べるのは差別だと仏教のお坊さんや神道の神主を集めて会議したり菜食主義を唱えるようになります。 　自然な生き方を志向するようになります。 　そしてフリーメイソン、イルミナティ、ユダヤ人、国際金融資本反対みたいな陰謀論のようなものを唱えるようになります。 　そしてその次は「爬虫類が人間を支配している」と唱えるようになっていきます。 　まあ陰謀論や爬虫類人類はともかく現在のリベラルとかポリコレとか反差別とか環境主義とかヴィーガンのような方向にシフトしていきます。 　ナチュラリストとして有機野菜を育てるみたいなのは全学連（大学自治体の組織で共産党から新左翼に徐々にヘゲモニーを奪われていった）や全共闘（自治体とかではなく新左翼各派やノンセクトラディカルな無党派層の横の連帯）活動に従事していた人たちの中には太田竜だけでなくそういう方向に集まるようになります。 　こういう方向に影響を受けているのはざっと名前を開けると池〇彰、朝まで生テレビとかの司会の人、宮〇駿、テリー〇藤、押〇守、上野〇鶴子、菅〇人、枝〇幸男、海江〇万里、仙〇由人、佐〇優、坂本〇一、村〇龍、加藤〇紀子など有名な人をざっとあげるだけでも枚挙にいとまがありません。 　組織としては大学、労働組合、NPO、NGO、宗教団体、官公庁、地方自治体、公立学校、メディア、学会、政党、省庁、いろんなところに浸透していました。 　オー〇真〇教の浅原〇晃は「ポアしろ」は密教の言葉ですが左翼活動家の隠語です。 　右もそうで安倍首相を暗殺した件で問題になった統〇教会も防共のためにCIAなどとかかわりを持ちましたし日本なんかはいい方でイタリアの鉛の時代ではバチカンもマフィアも絡んでいます。 　日本も右も左もやくざは絡んでいます。 　例えば読売新聞なんかは1947年の2.1ストのナベツネ、安保闘争世代、全共闘世代、リベラル世代で一気通貫です。 　右や保守側も「若いころには活動くらいしていないと見どころがない」とか言って積極的にちょっと一線を越えてしまっていないような学生は雇い入れていた節があります。 　イタリアもそうですがこれにアメリカ、中国、ソ連、北朝鮮、韓国（まだ民主化してから40年も経っていない）その他のいろいろな国々も絡んで何が何やらなのですがそんな外国のスパイ工作ハリートラップとか言わなくても日本国内だけの知識でもいろいろなことが分かります。 ・左翼でないのは真心がない 　社会主義は正義です。 　真理でもあります。 　社会主義でないのは真心がないと国民（もしかしたら世界の多くの地域で）が思っていたし今も思う人は多いでしょう。 　平等を否定する人は警戒されるでしょう。 　「平等」の定義はちゃんとできるのは難しいのですが。 　マルクス、レーニン主義、あるいは共産主義は今は流行りません。 　「生産手段の共有」すなわち「共産」が現実にどのようなものなのか現在のような現実的な時代には難しいでしょう。 　もっともテクノジーや社会思想も進歩しているので今後は具体的な方法が出てくるかもしれません。 　共産主義は流行りませんが広い意味の社会主義、「平等を追求する」はこれからのテーマです。 　これまでのはやりは反差別でリベラルやポリコレでこれは平等主義や社会主義とちょっと違うものなのですが現在の文脈では左翼です。 　そもそも左翼や社会主義であることは正義で真理で真心があることでしたのでみんな各紙もしませんでしたしむしろ誇りました。 　現在は左翼というと「ちょっと危ない人」というイメージがかすかについてきているかもしれません。 　ただ新自由主義やグローバリズムが行き過ぎた昨今では左翼や社会主義にもうちょっと頑張ってもらわないといけないかもしれません。 　何事もバランスです。 　人類がもっとおとなしくもっと落ち着くまでは左翼や社会主義はもっとアップデートして個人主義や自由主義的なものとうまくバランサーになるように努めないといけない局面が出てくるかもしれません。 　本当は何事もほどほどがいいのですが極端に偏ってしまいがちなので自由や平等、個人主義や集団主義はもうちょっと折り合いをつけて丸く収めるのが成熟、老成した かつてGHQやアメリカも「左翼（理想主義）」に夢を見て、日本を実験場にしました。 しかし冷戦という「現実」に直面して転向しました。 今、私たちはポリコレや環境主義という「新しい左翼の夢」を見ているが、これもまたいつか「現実」の前に色あせていくのでしょうか。 それとも、太田竜のように「爬虫類」まで行ってしまうのでしょうか。 どちらにせよ、「真心（正義）」の暴走を止めるのは、いつの時代も「冷めた現実（退屈な日常）」だけなのかもしれません。

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?