AI synthetic Touhou fan-art: Youmu and Sanae standing against Tojiko, Futo, and Futo in Touhou 13 ~ Ten Desires - Tool: ChatGPT plus

 

Posted on my pixiv page: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/147796476

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Htb42KpQzk
NicoNico: https://www.nicovideo.jp/shorts/ss46607508

Lately, I’ve been busy with my main job and have no air conditioning in my room, making it hard to focus on creative work due to my primary research duties. Today, I scanned a rough sketch and finished it using a mix of AI tools. I also made this as an example of creating free AI art with ChatGPT. 

The prompt grew iteratively. Each unsuccessful generation revealed another ambiguity, so I kept adding more precise constraints until the result came close to the composition in my mind. In that sense, the final prompt is almost an archaeological record of my negotiations with the model.

The image is not only my idealised vision of Touhou Project, but also my own philosophical allegory. The three figures above represent hereditary, ritualised authority and the power of tradition. Sanae, as a modern progressive arriving from the twenty-first century, and Youmu, imagined as a solitary and disciplined swordswoman, confront them from below. Together, the two heroines represent different aspects of the player—essentially, different aspects of myself.

The input prompts are as follows: 

Manifesto Fictosexualism!

 

I would like to declare for the manifesto insisting on the rise and the full right of Fictosexualism! 

This is one of the glorious cause of supporting Progressive Libertarianism /  Classical Liberalism!

I follow the ethics of my admirable philosopher Jeremy Bentham saying "The greatest sum of pleasures with the lowest sum of pains is the principle of moral and legislation." Nobody harms and an individual gains the happiness from being fictosexual!

I sincerely despise the staunch Christians, feminists, and the staunch structuralists, persecuting my personality trait!

Soren Kierkegaard

(Originally published on 26 May 2017)

Soren Kierkegaard: My favourite existentialist philosopher. Although I disagree with majority of existentialists generally speaking, I strongly agree with and am sympathetic to Soren Kierkegaard. 

 

He explicitly criticised schools of the modern idealism and their influences in the modern world. The disease of modernity is a blunt dogmatic determinism without an emotional passion. Also, he mentioned that the modern idealism merely attracts people with their abstract principle which is extremely complex to explicitly explain in a plain language. These modern idealists including both fascists and socialists over-estimate the future while depreciating the simple happinesses in both the past and the pressent. 

 

Either/Or is our ever lasting challenge in our life and makes us strong, passionate, and then wise. (The following sentences were added on 09 May 2024) We are living with our best effort to live off our life. Every choice of our life is derived from our optimum decision making process as well as the inevitable external influences. Therefore, even with a rational way of explaining which choice is right or wrong, there is utterly unproductive and miserable to regret what has been chosen to do. We may just need to repent our choice in our life to make ourselves more emotionally and spiritually satisfied with it.

Megumu Iizunamaru (Utilitarian) VS Byakuren Hijiri (Deontologist): 東方利維坦~Leviathan~

 

Why I have decided to write it and illustrated this image of these characters from Touhou Project

There was an opinion poll to decide which character could be our ideal chief / manager / commander in Touhou Project. I personally thought Megumu Iizunamaru, the chief of the Tengu clan, would be the best in the poll. However, she did not take the first place in this particular opinion poll. At the same time, the result was still agreeable because Byakuren Hijiri, the chief of Myourenji temple, took the first place. 

Both Iizunamaru and Hijiri have an ideal quality as a leader of an organisation. It should not be the case that either one surpasses the other for their leadership quality. It is not the issue of the quality; It is the issue of their characteristics to distinguish their suitability of being an ideal leader of one organisation! 

Their characteristics of business management and political philosophy can be clearly explained by means of the two major philosophical theories of ethics and social justice: Utilitarianism, invented by Jeremy Bentham, and Deontology, mostly notably the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. 

The former values the actions bringing the greatest happiness/welfare/profit in consequence. The latter values the action depending on the moral evaluation of the nature of the actions regardless of the consequence. Amazingly, it is quite obvious to be able to explain that Iizunamaru follows Utilitarian whereas Hijiri follows Deontology according to their scripts in both the original Touhou project (*1) series and various fan-arts of them. 

This dichotomous comparison of these two ethical principles is discussed in various realms in the world. Justice with Michael Sandel lecturing about social justice and its ethical principle in the University of Harvard can be the most remarkable stage of this discussion. Yuval Noah Harari, having published "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" has predicted this topic will be an essential matter for setting the thought processes of the artificial intelligence (AI). It is hotly discussed in not only politics and sociology but also management and our daily-life ethics. 

This is a really wonderful coincidence that the action principle of Iizunamaru and Hijiri follows either of the ethical principles. It enables to introduce these social justice theories with the examples with these images of Touhou project with fun. I have also enjoyed illustrating these images of Megumu Iizunamaru and Byakuren Hijiri for this article (*2).

*1 Touhou project series produced by ZUN and Shanghai Alice Fantasy Band 

*2 These illustrations are posted in my Pixiv page so please visit https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/32334195! 

What is "東方利維坦~Leviathan~"

This blog title is also my own Fanzine title based on this battle of these excellent chiefs I am thinking of to publish if realisable. Leviathan is the tittle of the book published by Thomas Hobbes, the British philosopher in the 17th century. It introduces the historical evolution and the philosophical principle of law and order. Leviathan is originally a humongous mythological monster, and this book refers to this monster as a metaphor of organising a civic nation and the other massive organisations. It also explains about the necessary existence of one sovereign with rational authority sustaining the organisational structure as well as the entire social order. 

Iizunamaru belongs to the largest organisation in Gensokyou (the Touhou world) and takes part of a major role for leading her Crow Tengu clan. Youkai mountain is composed of various Youkai clans functioning to sustain their civic social order and technological progress as tough it were one major corporation oligarchy. She works on behalf of the interest of this humongous organisation equivalent to Leviathan state. 

Hijiri, the chief nun magician of Myourenji temple, manages a relatively smaller group than Iizunamaru whilst she aspires for establishing one immense civic social order uniting human and Youkai (*3). This is a deviant ideal which the majority of Touhou characters of both attributions. At the same time, she has a plan and the talent of establishing such a state with a size of Leviathan although her ideal is different from Hobbesian autocratic sovereign state. 

In this Fanzine, if realised, I would like to write a story of Iizunamaru and Hijiri. Iizunamaru and Youkai mountain representing the status-quo of the current Leviathan state. Hijiri and her fellows rebel against it with their ideal holding out for alternative organisational structure. This article introduces the background of this anticipated plan hoping to make it able to understand this major topic in philosophy, politics, sociology, and then the AI development.

 *3 Youkai generally a Japanese mystical creature whereas Touhou project uses this term as non-human attribute. 

 

Byakuren Hijiri & Immanuel Kant: Deontologist

Kantian philosophy claims for a fundamental criterion like mathematical axiom enabling logics of ethics to objectively self-evaluates its validity itself.  This criterion justifies the nature of actions and thought-processes rather than their consequence. They are categorically verified if they follow this criterion. Otherwise, they are classified as hypothetical. These actions are motivated by the ethical duty determining absoluteness of right and wrong so that this is why it is called Deontology.

Kant was also remarkable for initiating the idea of establishing the united nation under a principle of human-right.  In order to seek the happiness of all, the world has to be united under this principle eventually. Even though the separation and the conflicts among nations and tribes have been inevitable, all the people are ought to maintain their ethical universal principle to converge to such a state. 

Hijiri's philosophy is identical to Kantian. She treats both human and Youkai equally and keep aspiring to establish a unification of tribes of both human and all attributes of Youkai in Gensokyou. Nevertheless, her ideal is indeed deviant in the world of Gensokyou where the segregation among a human commune and the tribes of Youkai is considered as inevitably necessary. Reimu Hakurei, the protagonist of Touhou project series who is in charge of moderating the entire law and order of Gensokyou, even support the segregation policy between human and Youkai.  

The ethics of both Kant and Hijiri has a critical drawback which is the lack of tolerance. In terms of Gensokyou history, Hijiri has revealed her intolerance towards the protagonist. Hijiri started assaulting them because they insist on defeating Youkai in their duty to solve the incidence caused by Youkai at the first encounter. Furthermore, Hijiri imposes strict precepts on not only herself but also all her fellows in Myourenji temple in their daily life. Therefore, their degree of freedom in their actions and thoughts are morally restrained.  

Megumu Iizunamaru & Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarian

Benthamite philosophy claims for the greatest sum of pleasures and the lowest sum of pains as the principle of moral and legislation. This concept is the cost and benefit analysis for the ethical justification. Bentham attempted to quantify the outcomes brought by legal settings and individuals' actions to make their costs and benefits mathematically measurable. Therefore, he aspired to establish an fundamental axiom for justifying law and ethics for mathematical estimation of equitable judgement and future outcomes. 

Bentham was sceptical about the customary law relying on the past examples and tradition plus the unquantifiable emotions and morality.  Benthamite ethics tolerates various customs and actions as long as they bring a greatest pleasure and profit with the lowest possible cost and pain while not unnecessarily harming the others. Together with its focus on the future outcome rather than the past tradition, this ethics encouraging innovations of adopting new ideas and technologies as well as a high degree of freedom of actions and thoughts. 

Iizunamaru's philosophy is identical to Benthamite. She is eager to adopt new ideas and technologies encouraging the development and the welfare of her clan and the entire Youkai mountain.  Her role covers not only managing her own Tengu clan members but also collaborating with the subsidiary inside Youkai mountain such as Kappa and their factory. She has also initiated a new product distribution in a market of the spell card by taking a high risk. Despite her very high demand for various tasks, she treats her subordinates and stakeholders well enough to gain a high charisma of being loved and trusted by them.

The problem of their philosophy is the negligence of something unquantifiable and the risk of unpredicted costs incurred upon their action. Iizunamaru has plotted the market manipulation by distributing the extra spell cards by colluding with Chimata Tenkyu. The spell card rule is something sacred which should not be easily manipulated in Gensokyou. This is why it was cracked down by Reimu of Hakurei shrine. For the sake of maximising profit for herself as well as her fellows, she sometimes commit dirty or risky business which tend to be criticised by the traditional moral sense. This is the typical drawback of Utilitarianism regarding highly of the end justifying the mean in general. 

 

Brief Conclusion

This analogy of ethics in social justice with Touhou characters may help more people to understand in an explicit way. This topic is widely discussed in various fields in academia and our daily life. Also, studying about this subject may make people enjoy the entertainment of Touhou project. The next challenge will transform this topic to more entertaining media such as comic or video.  I personally have to investigate how to do so and make my own effort to realise it somehow.

Libertarian: The Most Radical Progressive!

 

Libertarian is often seen as either an ally with conservatives (natural law) or a revolutionary like Marxism. However, Libertarian is close to neither of them especially by means of its metaphysical perspective. Let’s evaluate Libertarian and its contrasts.

Libertarian is a fundamentally metaphysical radical located at the edge of the metaphysical spectrum asserting the complete opposition from the Determinist counterpart. Conservatives usually regard of the unchangeable nature of humans and their world unlike Libertarian believing in the ultimate power of individuals free will transforming the world. Therefore, conservatives tend to lean relatively more towards Determinism than Libertarian radically being sceptical about Determinist metaphysics.

Both Marxist materialism and Libertarian are indeed progressives against conservatives. On the other hand, Libertarian instead insists on much more radical progressivism than Marxism notably by means of the metaphysics. Libertarians do not take account of Marxian materialist perspective because the will of individuals is free from the material constraints while their will is more influential over the world shape than the materialist assumption.

Marxism and the other types of materialism assume that material conditions and physical surrounding environment of individuals influence both the fate of human-individuals as well as their will. Therefore, it describes that it is the historical inevitability to provoke a revolutionary movement when a large majority group of individuals is marginalised from the world structure to expect the change. Marxism focuses on the group of individuals sharing the same materialist interest rather than each individual’s own unique imagination with their free will. Thus, Marxist materialism is still relatively more towards Determinism with its emphasis on the fate for individuals awaiting the collectively organised reformation/revolution.

Libertarian does not count on a possibility of the world transformation as the fated historical inevitability like Marxism. It assumes that individuals are always free to change themselves and the world whenever they want. Marxism and the other materialists underestimate the power of each individual for its possibility to transform the world alone. By contrast, Libertarian expects each individual alone has her/his own invincible power of transforming the world.

Libertarian is the resemblance to spiritualism rather than materialism despite its intense secular characteristic defying superstition and moral cohesion. It can be called secular-spiritualism regarding highly of individuality of each unique individual. It is identical to Epicurean of the ancient Greek philosophy stating the world reality is the mirror reflecting individuals’ mindset. It is also close to Buddhism stating various unique universes exist per the number of individuals existing in this world.

There is no such a thing as the determined world because there is an unlimited number of the parallel worlds existing as the interactions of both material beings and the invincible free will of each autonomous individual prevails to exist! The reason why many individuals still feel like being prisoned in the limitation of this terrestrial world is that they are still bound to the authoritarian indoctrination by the ruling class oppressors.

The imagination power of majority individuals is still not strong enough to drastically transform their world environment and their life. Nevertheless, this imagination power strength can be trained to gradually grow enough to be close to the saints having existed in the world spiritual history. Do not surrender to the inevitability mythology indoctrinated by conservatives! Do not underestimate each autonomous individual which is way stronger than the cohesive union of individuals merely stimulated by the material conditions and motivated by the collective political agitation of Marxism!

Daoism well explains how the world is turning up to be. In particular, from now on, the material prosperity represented as 陽 (Yang, the light element) is decaying as the reaction towards its intensity up to recently. Then, 陰 (Ying, the shadow element) representing spirituality and humbleness is being intensified in the entire world from now on.

The influence of Marxism with the heavy emphasis on the perfectionist goodness of the materialistic transformation is characterised by the Yang (Light) element. Instead, the humble attitude based on the tolerance towards material stagnation such as encouraging the humble living condition under the natural harmony, characterised by the Ying element, will be recommended as the virtuous wisdom to live off.

Under such a world with the stronger Ying elemental characteristic and quality, Libertarian spiritualism will help individuals to live off. Both Daoism and Libertarian regard highly of the natural harmony under the free flow of things and lives with their voluntary will not constraint by any hypocritical indoctrination. Instead of the perfectionist intervention like Marxism, they assert reinforcing the power of each autonomous individual’s will and imagination to naturally adopt themselves to the given living environment to thrive there.

At the same time, the ruling class oppressors of the status-quo having exploited the rest will eventually face the punishment by means of the flow of this world transformation. Its Ying characteristic punishes those who cannot neither accept nor be satisfied with the humble lifestyle. The voluntary community cooperation of individuals will be emphasised in the near future so that those who cannot comply with its spontaneous rule will be expelled away. Libertarians can be compatible with this communitarian sense even with its intense individualism: Its communitarian solidarity is based on individuals’ voluntary will instead of Marxian style cohesive enforcement agitating with the hypothetical perfectionism.

In conclusion, Libertarian can be the most sanely deviant political philosophy having existed in history. It can be adaptable to the new age spiritualism defining the world composed of the unlimited parallel worlds with which are popular especially in the internet activities nowadays.

Plato vs Aristotle

There is a famous Raphael’s painting showing the contrast between Plato and Aristotle by means of their philosophical differences on the centre in the ancient Athenian academia. Plato pointing out above indicates his idealism whilst Aristotle pointing out below indicates his naturalism (disagreeing to describe his philosophy as realism). This passionate academic arena is indeed the place to visit if there were a time-machine.

The significant distinction between Plato and Aristotle is their focus on the human nature; Plato believed in something more transcendent to the human nature whereas Aristotle puts emphasis on the inevitable unchangeable human nature. Plato manifested the single ideal state model (Stratified guardian/spectator autocracy) meanwhile Aristotle described various unique state models adaptable to each unique nature of geo-politics and ethnicity (Monarchy/Dictatorship, Aristocracy/Oligarchy, and (Direct) Democracy.)

Plato’s Predecessor Socrates was the first remarkable idealist insisting on the moral universalism which all human individuals should aspire to follow to accomplish a unified ideal objective transcending to the human nature forming their living environment. By contrast, Aristotle admitted there is an inevitable but productive human nature underlining to form their characteristics and adaptation to the changing living environment. Plato claimed for the better alternative whereas Aristotle suggested for various unique states for each varying environmental condition.

This conflict model of the philosophical perspectives has been a universally discussed topic all over the world since then. Even in the Eastern Asia, there is a philosophical contract resemblance to this Western counterpart: Confucian is the idealist pursuing for the universal transcendental objective like Plato whilst Daoism describing various unique forms naturally adapted to each situation. In the modern era, even though the philosophical perspectives offer far more complex theory with a bigger picture, the same conflicting concept still remains.

In the modern era, there are many derivations partially adopting both Platonian and Aristotelian concepts. Thomas Hobbes based his theory on the moral relativism while adopting the Platonian-like stratified autocratic order providing the strong unity of all the individuals. Jeremy Bentham insisted on the moral universalism of pursuing the unified objective although its principle is derived from the conventional human nature instead of the transcendental alternative while supporting a more democratic state.

Kant achieved in providing the far more complex theory of its moral universalism than Plato. Considering Plato only discussed something A and something not-A, Kant clarified something defining and verifying the existence of both A and not-A as a priori which is resemblance to mathematical axiom. Then, instead of the substantial principle such as the guardian autocracy, he claimed for the abstract principle for something human individuals are supposed to obey. Then, regardless of any political form of states existing depending on each unique environmental condition, human individuals are supposed or encouraged at least to obey the universal abstract ethical principle as their maxim for accomplishing their ethically ideal goal little by little with try and error.

Kantian philosophy is rather called Conceptualism distinguished from Platonic idealism due to its flexibility as well as its complexity. Kant admitted some real substantial world obstacles disrupting individuals to establish an ideal state although he suggested they should make their best effort to accomplish their ideal transcendental to their conventional natural quality. Friedrich Hegel modified Kantian philosophy by adopting Platonic idealist concept. Hegel affirmed that human individuals are gradually evolving to establish their heavenly ideal state by referring to their ethical maxim.

David Hume can be seen as the first remarkable philosopher challenging against the aforementioned Socratic successors. Hume took over Hobbesian moral relativist perspectives while defying to manifest one particular form of state like Hobbes. Hume’s philosophy is definitely opposing to Plato by means of being sceptical about both the morality which human individuals can hypothetically define to impose upon themselves and the existence of something transcendental to the human nature without experiencing to explicitly prove their existence in real.

Kant started inventing his philosophy as the counterpart argument against Hume’s Experimentalist philosophical theory. Hume’s theory has influenced Benthamite Utilitarian philosophy by means of its emphasis on the naturalism and by means of its scepticism about the non-natural transcendental moral principle although Hume and Bentham disagreed with each other by means of their moral theory. It has also seemingly influenced the postmodern philosophies which are very similar to Hume’s perspective on the moral principle and the human nature because both support the moral relatives and the human naturalism.

In the postmodern era, there were many postmodernist philosophers introducing their own version of the pre-Socratic concepts detaching philosophies from both the idealism and the moral universalism. They often defied the universal nature of human individuals which Aristotle claimed for. Although they are reactionary to the post-Socratic philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and aforementioned modern philosophers, their reaction took place as the counterarguments against the post-Socratic philosophies so that the influence of Plato and Aristotle cannot be ignored even in their reactionary attitude.

In conclusion, regardless of which perspective, Platonic or Aristotelian, to take and of challenging against both of them, none can escape from the influence of Plato (the legitimate Socrates’s predecessor) and Aristotle (the post-Socratic influencer). Without these two legends, the entire human world history would have been a really different by means of its characteristics as well as its quality. This dichotomic theoretical development has trained human individuals to enable their world view to rationally analyse themselves and their living world to encourage their evolution. 

Book Recommendation: Natural Law Liberalism

 First of all, before introducing the book, it is important to know the brief introduction of the disputed types of Liberalism. The brief birth story of Liberalism in the modern era is needed. The two mainstreams of Liberalism are roughly explained as follows.

Liberalism is a political philosophy claiming for liberty of autonomous individuals emancipated from authoritarian oppression with their naturally endowed right and equality of obtaining it. It distinguishes liberty from a simple freedom as it claims for some degree of restriction on one’s freedom of doing whatever s/he wants on a temporary basis. It insists providing individuals with a broader meaning of freedom in a permanent basis as well as the social public environment and its minimum required rule securing all the individuals to accomplish it.

Although it is often believed that Liberalism emerged in the early modern age, the base concept was already emphasised by Aristotle (The ancient Greek) and Thomas Aquinas (The medieval European) at the pre-modern time period. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expressed humans as autonomous individuals who should be free to act and think with their own freewill. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke claimed for Liberty as the universal naturally endowed to complete the overall picture of the characteristics of Liberalism in the beginning of the modernity

The first mainstream of Liberalism in the modern world politics formed its characteristic identity by adopting the utilitarianism asserting to maximise the sum of pleasures while minimising the sum of pains by letting individuals to act freely with their constitutional right under the mutual social agreement. This is also related to economic freedom encouraging the market competition guaranteeing the equality of opportunity for individuals to join to be rewarded by means of their contribution merit. This is the Liberalism encouraging the overall liberty in a comprehensive meaning so that it is introduced as Comprehensive Liberalism.

On the other hand, there is the second mainstream of Liberalism challenging the aforementioned Liberalism where liberty is limited to the constitutional and metaphysical level. This new branch of Liberalism attempt to modify the older version of Liberalism to the newer alternative more applicable to the political intention of accomplishing the liberalist ideal ethics.

This second mainstream of Liberalism insisting on providing individuals with their right of the comprehensive freedom but also an impartial spectator intervening resource distribution, social justice mediation, and rehabilitating the handicapped minorities. The most notable figure is John Rawls having introduced the political theory called Political Liberalism claiming for more proactive interventions rather than the conventional laissez-faire (little or no intervention policy).

The provision of liberty requires the daily political level intervention to individuals more than guaranteeing their right under the constitution or the customary agreement. There is the veil of ignorance penalising some individuals lacking the necessary information before acting freely. In order to accomplish the equality of opportunity under a fair competition, it requires a certain degree of the redistribution of resources to enable all the individuals to become competent and able. The minority individuals are often marginalised under the laissez-faire majority rules so that it requires the culturally and religiously intermediate pluralist intervention into it. It thus requires the proactive intervention by this impartial spectator is thus necessary to mitigate these obstacles causing unfairness.

Nevertheless, there is a counterargument being sceptical about these modern types of Liberalism whose political methods are controversial enough to judge whether or not they can encourage individuals’ liberty. The book introduced here indicates one of the counterarguments. 

This book “Natural Law Liberalism” is highly recommended to read to understand the characteristics and their transformation of various derivations of Liberalism in the modern world. The author of this book manifestos his own version of Liberalism challenging against the two mainstream versions of the modern Liberalism.

His own manifesting political philosophy is explained in the last one third of this book whilst the first two thirds of this book is about introducing what versions of Liberalism exist. It mostly covers the historical evolution of Liberalism having produced various derivations from the pre-modern periods including the ancient Greece and the medieval Europe to the modern time period. Therefore, this book is actually useful as a textbook of understanding the evolution of Liberalism.

This book puts strong emphasis on the sceptic perspective on the modern types of Liberalism by criticising them with reference to his manifesting alternative. However, even though its main intention is criticising it, it well-summarises the characteristics of both Utilitarian Comprehensive Liberalism and Rawlsian Political Liberalism while explaining how either of them has become popular in the political arena nowadays. Thus, this book is recommended to study it at a fast pace because of its objectively well-summarised description.

The counterargument against Rawlsian Political Liberalism is based on the scepticism about the impartial spectator as a mediator of social justice and also about its moral neutrality. This public institute as an impartial spectator promoting the pluralism of cultural, ethnic, and moral diversity is still prone to the bias manipulated by the powerful influential cohort of this political arena. The objectivity and plurality can therefore also be under the threat of political lobbying.

This book highlights the criticism on both Comprehensive Liberalism neglecting to install the core moral principle and Rawlsian Political Liberalism overestimating the neutrality of the secular (believed to be morally neutral) interventionist social reform. Instead, it suggests Liberalism to focus on the inevitable influence by the majority mainstream and the longevitive tradition to policy making and societal environments. For example, the history of religious influence over social norms and values is significantly longer than the history of the modern secular politics.

The author of this book is a stronger supporter of the metaphysical and ethical philosophy of Natural Law most notably defined by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Both Aristotle and Aquinas expected for human individuals as naturally social so that their spontaneously formed social order is sufficient enough to encourage both stability and fairness.

The Natural Law theory by Aristotle and Aquinas describes the error correction mechanism called an unmovable mover which indicates the unchangeable virtue even in necessary multiple drastic social transformations. All in all, while individuals and their society may constantly change to adapt individuals and their society to each new environment with new challenges within the minimum necessary restriction imposed by the unchangeable virtuous guideline.

The seemingly most essential point of this book is underlining the importance of a strong sense of morality of all the individuals and their community functionally cohabiting together in a society. An authoritarian state does not require a strong morality of its individual citizens under a cohesive stability. By contrast, a state with less or no authoritarianism requires individuals being moral enough to enable them to voluntarily comply with the spontaneous order stabilising their state.

Overall, regardless of political opinions and perspectives, this book is highly recommendable to understand characteristics and challenges of the various versions of Liberalism in history. Also, it explains that Natural Law, the metaphysical and ethical philosophy, is compatible with Liberalism in practice for the current daily politics. This attempts to explain that Aristotle and Aquinas are ones of the remarkable Liberalist political thinkers. Even though it is not agreeable, it is thought provoking enough to get interested in Liberalism and its historical footprints.

Worrying Pure Logics and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

 

Pure logics lacks the core principle enabling it to self-evaluate its validity such as mathematical axiom. Therefore, there are multiple possible answers not unified under an axiomatic rule. In philosophy, philosophers define their theoretical criterion as the core foundation basing their logical consistency prior to configuring their theoretical architecture of logics. Natural science refers to the empirical evidence shown in the substantial world experiment basing their logical arguments.

By contrast, economics and the other social scientific subjects nowadays tend to ignore this fundamental argument on their theoretical validity. Since the 20th century, people have tended to treat economics and the other social scientific subjects such as sociology, political science, and psychology as the pure physical science by detaching them from a metaphysical foundation. Prior to that time period, those social scientific subjects were strongly tied up with philosophy taking account of metaphysics defining the fundamental principle of their arguments.

Unlike natural science, social science including economics seldom presents an empirical experience instantly proven with the substantial experiment. This is why they used to be more tied up with a philosophical perspective providing the guidance of their direction of experiment. For example, economic and social policies as well as psychological therapy must be related to ethics with its metaphysical background and its guiding base principle. Moreover, epistemology weighs on convincing people with these social scientific theories needing to convince people to trust in what these theories insist on. This is because their theoretical validity is hardly proven by the empirical experiment like natural science.

Despite this factor, people nowadays tend to be obsessed with the narrow-minded short-term objectives such as money making gaming and labelling individuals according to their conformance to the mainstream society. This tendency is notorious in financial economics and psychology related to sociology. Economists nowadays tend to focus on the market speculation and pedantically modifying the already existing theories. Social psychologists impose the cohesively unified theory authorised by the academic elite peer group to people with little empirical experimental evidence and little discussion among various perspectives. This is in fact a worrying phenomenon for individual people and their world environment.

The prisoner’s dilemma theory is the clear example indicating this worrying matter when individuals are motivated by following the pure logics without the philosophical principle while pursuing the narrow-minded short-term goal. The prisoner’s dilemma explains that the spontaneously equilibrium point is not always good; Its outcome can be actually bad! The original theory explains that each one of these two prisoners betrays each other to eventually induce themselves to the worst overall outcome in consequence although their cooperation would bring the best outcome. This is not due to their stupidity at all. Their rational attitude towards their pure logical thought process induces their action leading to the worst outcome. This analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma can be used as the analogy of the market speculation in economics.

In this case scenario, private economic agents seldom voluntarily cooperate together to divert their economy from the worst outcome. Instead, they often induce the worst outcome called the bad equilibrium without any forcible countermeasure against it. During the deflationary recession, their action perpetuates the deflation by saving more while investing less to the market although they had better cooperate to invest more to divert the deflation to overcome the recession. At the time of the economic overheat causing the surging price inflation, their action accelerates the inflation by investing more than the prudential level instead of suppressing it by being prudent.

This is why the authoritarian paternalistic government intervention is often desired to forcibly divert these worst outcomes. However, this officious government intervention often antagonises individual citizens thinking of their government as rather impertinent than compassionate. Furthermore, the government also often fail to achieve such an intervention due to their long complicated bureaucratic processes slowing the process down as well as corruption and incompetence discouraging it.

This market dysfunction is caused by the rational but over-speculative attitude of these economic agents. It is considered to be derived from their narrow-minded mentality without any philosophical principle. It reminds of the proverb “Reality is but a mirror reflecting your inner world.” which both Epicurus and Schopenhauer inferred in their philosophy at each contemporary time period. The world turns to be a chaotic game of speculation without any noble ethical principle.

Sum up, the reliance on pure logics without any guiding principle is unproductive as well as worrying. This can be the reason why the current world situation is in a chaotic state. Whilst the intelligence and the technology of applying more complex logics than the past, it still struggles to reach a productive and virtuous state. Hence, it must be the time to revise to evaluate the core principle basing logics foundation and enabling it to self-evaluate to verify its validity itself.

Logics and its reliability

Logics is not mathematics; it is a form of art. The validity of Mathematical equations is derived from mathematical axiom to induce the unified valid legitimate answer. By contrast, pure logics lacks this kind of criterion like mathematical axiom verifying the validity of the logical inference. Therefore, many logical subjects are unable to derive a solid unified answer so that they often provoke the conflict among different perspectives.

Logics is a form of expression to display the outcome which an individual wishes to achieve. For instance, the abduction shows A will induce C if A is/implies B as well as B is/implies C. At the same time, this answer can be modified by taking account of some external compound effect inside this algorism. There is no criterion enabling this algorism to self-evaluate to judge whether it is valid or invalid according to something like mathematical axiom.

Plato seems to be introduced as a figure head of the idealist philosopher in the history. However, his idealism hardly goes beyond the daily-life custom and experience. His logical inference is purely based on A and not A. Plato actually ended up with being an ultra-realist insisting on the importance of the power structure stabilising the human society instead of inventing some abstract concept beyond the human nature. But yet, Plato as well as his predecessor Socrates opened the gate of pursuing a universal objective to achieve the ideal state which a human individual may want to aspire.

By contrast, both Bentham and Kant invented their own theory of self-evaluating the validity of their logical inference with reference to the fundamental axiom of philosophical logics. This invention has enabled thinkers to imagine their ideal state beyond their real-life experiences. There shall be something verifying the validity of both A and not-A as well as inferring the unseen valid alternative of neither A nor not-A.

The crucial difference between Benthamite and Kantian logics is either human nature is changeable or not. Bentham affirmed the criterion is to admit and follow the quasi-instinct of humans as natural whereas Kant insisted on something transcending the human nature forming human custom, desire, habit, superstition, tradition, etc. Even though philosophers keep disputing over which criterion is more convincing than the other, these modern idealists provided individuals with the imagination ability of thinking outside the box to think bigger.

Those who are called Pragmatists have adopted the combined perspectives of Benthamite and Kantian perspectives. They accept various unique criteria existing for each distinct verification process for each unique subject. They have distinguished criteria and objectives which individual refer to and pursue between the metaphysical subjects such as philosophy and religion and the physical scientific subjects such as natural science and daily-life matters such as household economy and business activities.

The metaphysical subject depends on norms and values of each unique world view whilst each physical science is ought to focus on their own short-term goal as their pursuing criterion detached from a metaphysical/philosophical (the big picture model). Natural science pursuing to discover the concepts explaining the nature of the substantial world mechanism by means of their experiment in nature. The real business management, distinguished from the academic subject called business management, verifies its legitimacy of existence by means of their business performance, portfolio, and profitability.



Ayn Rand ardently disagreed with these modern idealists cohesively imposing a solid answer for defining the legitimacy of human actions and thoughts because imposing a universal principle defined by a certain privileged individual group to the other majority individuals is hypocritical. She admitted that philosophy does not need to be something axiomatic like mathematics to forcibly deriving an absolute answer. She described human’s life is an everlasting pursuit of finding their own way of spending life as well as feeling and thinking their own imagination while being adjusted to each unique life environment varying across different times, places, and occasions.

Ayn Rand praised both art and pure logics which all the human individuals should be devoted in. She explained art is the outcome of each unique logical construction by each individual expressing their own beauty, functionality, intelligence, and value.　There should be no unified verification criterion/principle for approving their legitimacy. Instead, “try and error” guides individuals to their own ideal goal with the minimum required contracts and restrictions promoting and protecting the freedom of each individual to prevent unnecessary conflict, violation of freedom.

———

Nowadays, many academics as well as business and financial reporters often fail to address this aforementioned issue. There is no discussion over where the principle which their logical inference is based on. These authoritarians tend to hypocritically behave as though they were the transcendental guardians of all the humans whereas their logical inference is never universally valid in the real life of all the individuals. Their logical inference is simply the mere interpretation of their subjective desires and wishes.

In conclusion, it is important to question how logics is structured and the ulterior motive of the presenter using logics. For example, when a presenter uses her/his logics to forecast some outlook, her/his ulterior motive can be simply a subjective desire rather than an objective rationality. Instead of ranting on wishy-washy outcomes, it is rather productive to do some activities fulfilling the ethically worth something regardless of the future anticipation. If someone is excessively logical to explain or excuse something, there is a risk of this person intentionally intriguing to take an advantage of manipulating the others only for this person’s interest. 

... Japan 日本 !

I have been criticising Japan since the beginning of this site establishment. This criticism of Japan is based on both the objective social scientific analyses as well as the subjective perspective based on my own life experiences. However, I have recently realised that the characteristics of Japan strongly and repeatedly accused seem to be originated from the political establishment explained in the recorded history. 

The Tenno regime has formed the totalitarian characteristics. This has based the highly stratified social structure transforming the majority citizens' personality to be subservient to their authority. The intensively cohesive social norms and values are definitely the derivatives of this stratified social structure. 

Even during the Shogunate periods from the 12th to the 19th century, this cohesive social structure thrived despite the relatively weaker influence of the aristocratic central authority. Yet, the subservient personality of the Japanese mass was hardly discouraged so that their loyalty to any authority was strong regardless of Tenno or Shogun. Perhaps, this unchangeable subservient personality was derived from the Japanese geographical isolation in the world where the enlightenment from the outside hardly reached there. 

Since the 19th century, Japan has adopted the Western style modern governance and capitalist economy. Some elites Japanese have successfully been enlightened to become progressive thinkers attempting to transform Japan to the modern nation state deserving the majority citizens. Nevertheless, the underlying characteristics and personality of Japanese people subservient to their authority has never changed. 

Even though some enlightenment ideal has been introduced, the true enlightenment for emancipating majority Japanese individuals from their superstitious loyalty and servile personality has hey never been achieved. This is the fundamental cause of perpetuating the political and social corruption hurting the Japanese majority mass as a suicidal attitude of themselves. It seems to have required much more fundamentally drastic reform in Japan to enlighten them.

There has been criticism by the social anthropological theory of this socially pathological trait is rooted in the establishment stage of the authoritarian figure shown in the recorded history. The original Japanese civilisation identity was originally related to the Shintoist shamanism which followed the tranquil communitarian paganism promoting more egalitarian and mutualist social norms and values.

There is certainly an attractive element in Japan and Japanese humans and their civilisation which has been retained since the prehistorical period. The prehistorical ancient Shintoist shamanism and pagan practices had brought up Japanese individuals as highly spirited enough to compassionately cohabit with neighbouring individuals and natural environments. Their virtuous characteristics such as diligence and humbleness must have been born out of this period. 

The authoritarian establishment introduced in the early historical record destroyed that prehistorical sacred pagan Japan. The social anthropological theory claims that the peaceful pagan tradition of the Japanese civilisation has been hijacked by the authoritarian oppressors. The subservient personality of the Japanese mass must be formed by that oppressive structuralist regime forcing the excess centralisation of politics and the unconditional subservience of the Japanese mass to these oppressive rulers. 

The Japanese indigenous individuals were conquered by the few numbers of arrogant nobles heavily influenced by the oppressive authoritarian totalitarianism. These oppressors hijacked Shinto by replacing the original peaceful egalitarian paganism with the oppressive authoritarian counterpart. Its indoctrination has imprinted the servile and intolerant personality into the Japanese mass. 

In order to overcome from the current distressful social crises, it is the time for Japan and Japanese to reincarnate the sacred spiritual prehistorical Japan! It is not worth to give up this attempt to fight back against the oppressive status-quo exploiting individuals with the millennium long indoctrination!

Is Monetarism/Neoliberalism bad? Not at all!

Neoliberalism and its mainstream macroeconomic theory Monetarism are not bad theories like these old-fashioned Socialist and the other Left-wingers condemn at all! These theories teach very important socioeconomic lessons for all the individuals to live as long as the monetary economy where individuals use fiat-money for their intermediary of exchange in their daily life thrives to exist. 

Those who are against Neoliberalism tend to blame these theories as the severe survivalist Capitalist political theories leading the majority individuals to deprivation. However, it is the same nonsense as blaming Marxism and the other socialist theories for the disastrous mistakes of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Both Marxism and Neoliberalism contain the non-negligible elements to study the political affairs and the human history. 

- The monetary policy channel instead of the fiscal policy

Focusing on Monetarism as he major base macroeconomic policy of Neoliberalism, the key element of this theory is analysing the nature of the fiat-money flowing into economy as the intermediary of exchange. In the long run, the money value is neutral to the other substances distributed in the world. By contrast, it regards that the change in the money supply volume affects the economic activities and productivity level in the short-medium run. 

Monetarism regards highly of the value of the fiat-money supplied by the central bank which should be supported by its credibility and its market demand. Therefore, it is sensitive to adjust the money supply level to the aggregate production level of this economy in order to avoid the value depreciation. 

It encourages the private sector based economy functioned by the spontaneous order of individual economic agents voluntarily deciding the aggregate production volume according to their needs and wants on spot. It discourages the excess reliance on the fiscal policy cutting tax and increasing the government expenditure while incurring national debts leaving their responsibility of repayment with the inevitably increasing future taxation and cutting the future government expenditure in the long run. Instead, it tackles with the temporary economic downturn by temporary pumping the extra money supply filling the temporary emerging negative output gap. 

- High-Powered Money as the antidote against the deflationary recession

In order to enable the fiat-money to stimulate economy, the velocity power of this money supply which is its value and credibility in both domestic and international market, is required. When individual economic agents appreciate its value and credibility, they find its extra supply as valuable and trustable to use as their intermediary of exchange in both domestic and international market. They may either spend for their exchange or save in their banks using the extra money from their saving account as the extra investment resource for increasing their profit. This is called High-Powered Money theory. 

According to Monetarism, the deflation inducing the recession, the negative output gap, is caused by an error of scaling the optimum market aggregate production level or a false information delivered to economic agents. Thus, the deflationary recession is caused by the stuck money circulation which means the money supply level is not balanced with the aggregate productivity level. In this scenario, the money supply as the High-Powered Money can be increased to directly inject it to economy to equalise it to match with the aggregate productivity level. 

- Killing inflation is more important!

On the other hand, Monetarism regards of Stagflation (the output stagnation + the price inflation) as the excess money supply unmatching with the aggregate productivity level.  Then, the decreasing output caused by Stagflation is considered as the long-term phenomenon which should be solved by cutting the cots including wages of the production even if it means to discourage their business activity level at least for a short run.

The reason to sacrifice the output to suppress the inflation is to maintain the money value as useful to be implemented as the High-Powered Money. Even to protect the employment by maintaining the wage distribution, the real value of their wage/income is consequently reduced when the price inflation, the money value depreciation, is perpetuated. Monetarism is actually a humanitarian political theory against depreciating their income/wage level to avoid consequently treating these employees as the quasi-slave labour. 

Monetarism antagonises the perpetuated inflation even for diverting the negative output gap is bad for economy overall. Even though the extra money supply is injected into the real good and service market to push the output level up, the value depreciation negatively affects the capital market. 

Most of the capital asset value is based on the base money so that the money value depreciation implies the capital asset value depreciation in the international financial market. Almost all the firms producing goods and services are invested by banks and shareholders through the capital market.

In addition, firms in the good and service market also face the import cost up under Stagflation as the excess money supply perpetuating Stagflation. Because all the regions of this world are interdependent on each other so that the relative value decline of the fiat-money used in one regional economy causes the purchasing power depreciation of this regional economy. 

- Monetarist, Consequentialist Ethical Philosophy

Overall, Monetarism supports the gradual and natural economic recovery encouraged by private individuals and firms under the stable market economy propped up by the balanced money supply adjusted to the aggregate productivity level. This ethical policy is what Neoliberalism shares with and aspires to achieve so that Monetarism is the core macroeconomic policy of Neoliberalism.

Monetarism and Neoliberalism are often regarded with a bitter cold attitude towards those suffering from economic downturns by these antagonists. However, it is really a prejudice to accuse them as such because these theories take account of the majority individual citizens such as their about preventing their real income depreciation caused by the monetary value depreciation.

Monetarism and Neoliberalism may be categorised into the Consequentialist ethical philosophy which attempts to maximise the overall net benefits by maximising the sum of the gross benefits while minimising the sum of the various cots as a total at the end. Monetarism criticises the big government policy directly caring their citizens by incurring a massive debt and the non-stoppable inflation depreciating their income and the market value of financial assets in the international market. Monetarism counts on the rationality of each individual's free will and the spontaneous order based on these free wills to recover their economy with the minimum assistance by the small government. 

It does not mean that both Monetarism and Neoliberalism neglect the public support with government assistances. They simply suggest the minimum required assistances. Furthermore, the High-Powered Money of Monetarism maintains the real value of the assistances provided by government and the procurement power of this government gathering the resources for their provision. This is why the European countries implementing Social Democratic socioeconomic policies adopt Monetarism for their core macroeconomic policy.

- Monetarism in Europe

The weight on each different macroeconomic theory which Neoliberalists adopt to follow depends on each Neoliberalist. Some of them mildly adopt Keynesian theory meanwhile the devote Neoliberalists base their thoughts and plans purely on Monetarism. As a matter of fact, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the central banks of Scandinavian countries, whose countries are famous for their Social Democratic socioeconomic policy, follow the monetarist macroeconomic policies especially for their tight prudent money supply policy. This proves that Monetarism is worth referring to not only the economic Right-wing but also the relatively more centralist counterparts. 

Social Democracy is actually the friendly version of Liberal Democracy (Capitalism) (※) and not technically Socialism. Therefore, it makes sense that these Social Democratic European countries are happy to install Monetarism as the principle macroeconomic theory of handling their market economy. Their socially minded intervention is not stimulated by the proactive positive macroeconomic intervention by a central government expenditure or the extravagant money supply from a liberal central bank which Keynesian economic theory often uses. 

    ※ Liberal Democracy and Liberalism by means of this comparison are treated as the synonym of Capitalism, the market economy, because Neoliberalism is mentioned to explain in this essay. Liberal Democracy is therefore the synonym of Neoliberalism here. Then, Social Democracy is the derivation of Neoliberalism rather than Socialism. 

The level of tax and expenditure rarely changes flexibly unlike those adopting Keynesian theory as their core principle macroeconomic policy. Their costs for the socially minded public intervention of these European countries are covered by the tax revenue from the progressive taxation levied on individuals and firms their steadily growing market economy. These European countries especially since 1997 (The European Monetary Union conducted by the ECB was introduced then) have been actually reluctant to artificially stimulate their economy.

It is because their macroeconomic tradition, especially of Germanic and Nordic, puts high priority on prudence over expansion. Their Social Democracy sustains the diverse income distribution allowing the slow but steady human capital development. Therefore, Monetarism matches with their prudent attitude towards economy to slowly but steadily raising their economy backed up by the human capital development requiring the steady continuous public investment in the long run.

- Conclusion: Monetarism and Neoliberalism are good!

In conclusion, having re-evaluated Monetarism and its ethics basing Neoliberalism, it is actually an ethically good functional socioeconomic political philosophy. Their characteristic is simply different and unique from the other political economic theories.  Their quality depends on how, where, and when it is implemented in real.

    To my admiring economists, Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman

The Japanese Anarchist Communism

The current world socioeconomic situation is still gloomy. In particular, the socioeconomic situation of Japan is indeed depressing. On the top of the multiple decades of the income growth stagnation, the current stagflation (output stagnation + price inflation) perpetuated by the Japanese Yen (JPY) depreciation in the foreign currency exchange deteriorates individual citizens' daily life. The growing mental illness issues as well as the rising suicide rate are worrying as the sign of the moral and social crisis. Is it the problem of Japan itself? Or is it different from how Japan originally was? In the past, there was a political theory introduced as the antithesis of adopting the modern Western industrialisation and materialist ethics to Japan. So, let's evaluate.

In Japan, there were some politicians who were advocated to Anarchist Communist before the World War 2 (WW2). Even though this policy was not put into practice in real, this political movement was influential to the various contemporary rebellious political factions against the contemporary Western capitalist imperialism. This influence is non-negligible for explaining the spiritualism of the contemporary status quo Touseiha administration during the WW2 despite their different political characteristics.

A former Japanese government bureaucrat 柳田国男 (Kunio Yanagida) was inspired by an Anarchist Communist philosopher Kropotkin whereas he was a strong Japanese nationalist at the same time. Yanagida had a unique attitude towards the issue of the Japanese monarchy Tenno system. He attempted to restore the pre-modern traditional Tenno system linked to the original Shinto shamanism while criticising the current modern monarchism strongly tied up with the modern nation state and its modern state capitalism. His own plan was to establish an Anarchist Communist state of Japan based on the decentralised pastoralist environment where all the autonomous individual habitants mutually cohabit together with their own free will.

Yanagida was sceptical about adopting the modernisation to Japan because its nation state and capitalism seemed to have deteriorated Japan and her citizens despite its promise for improving their lifestyle with the materialistic development. The modern nation state capitalism not only prioritise those elites living in the top structure but also discourages the voluntary contributions of individuals and their community aiding individuals together. The free trade which the modern capitalism insists on interrupts an autocratic individual living in their own unique lifestyle by imposing the instant materialist seduction. This seduction to the instant materialistic pleasure has undermined the peaceful pastoralist environment providing individual habitants with the humble but well-secured lifestyle.

The theory of Gaia explains that the centre pole of the world energy flow has already been shifting from London, the U.K. to Awaji Island, Japan (Known as the sacred birthplace of Japanese civilisation blessed by the divine pair of Izanami, the Goddess of creation, and Izanagi, the God of creation, in Shinto mythology). This implies that the political and spiritual domination is shifting from Anglo-Saxon regime to Japanese counterpart. Majority spiritualists describe that this is the drastic shift from the materialistic masculine 陽 (Yang) element to the spiritualist feminine 陰 (Ying) element. This may induce the decay of the modern industrialist characteristic of the modern Japan as well as the reincarnation of the mystic shamanistic matriarchy of the ancient Shinto-ist Japan.

By means of understanding this theory of Gaia, it can be worth off to re-evaluate the Anarchist Communism explained by Yanagida. The material prosperity will be lost furthermore due to Japan's further insolation from the global economic network caused by Japan's loss of its economic initiative. On the other hand, Japan will start focusing more on the non-material beings such as the local community network and the spiritual well beings. The interesting factor nowadays is that the number of Japanese citizens practising some spiritual rituals as their daily habit such as chanting mantra and playing Yoga is increasing. This phenomenon seems to gradually initiate the spiritualist pastoralism introduced by Yanagida.

The totalitarian state communism based on the nation state statism backed up by the orthodox Marxism is an obsolete rebellion countering the modern industrialism and the capitalist ideology. The orthodox Marxism contains an intensive Yang element which is the cohesive paternalistic autocracy inducing a high risk of provoking a war and other excess conflicts. Therefore, this intensive Yang characteristic will not be accepted by the world shifting to more Ying characteristics.

The idea of Communism should not be monopolised by the orthodox Marxists; There is a variety of Communism which actually challenges against the orthodox Marxian style and is compatible with Liberalism. There have been various new political philosophical movements of challenging the combination of capitalism and modern nation state government. Michel Foucault was a remarkable philosopher accusing the oppressive characteristics of the entire modernity. 

Foucault's philosophy is often criticised as an anachronistic because he seemed to romanticise the pre-modern feudalist society to a certain extend. Yet, his theory clarifies how the emerging modernity with its nation state and capitalism has deteriorated individuality of autonomous individuals by forcing the conformity to the ruling class interests and the entire monstrous mechanism of the modern nation state. His idea was to respect each unique characteristic of individuals not undermined by an institutionalised socioeconomic structure, and his policy is often introduced as the postmodern Anarch-Syndicalism. 

Perhaps, this postmodern Anarchist Communism introduced by Michel Foucault might emerge in the future Japan when the aforementioned energy power pole-shift from the Anglo-Saxon Yang to the Japanese Ying is completed. It will be the ideology combination of Foucault and Yanagida to establish a postmodern mutualist socio-economy if it is realised. This will be a synthesis of the pastoral communitarian cooperative virtue and the postmodern individualistic enlightenment challenging against the paternalistic authoritarianism of the modern nation state and capitalism. 

All in all, if Communism rises to counter Capitalism, this might be predicted to be in Japan by referring to both the political science and the theory of Gaia. Perhaps, the current suffering of Japan might be the birth-pang for transforming the current modern nation state capitalist Japan into the new alternative such as this pastoral mutual cooperative state of Anarchist Communist kind.

The Good Communism: Anarch-Syndicalism

The word Communism tends to be often prejudicially quoted as a synonym of authoritarianism/totalitarianism based on a nation state government administration. The authoritarian characteristics of the orthodox Marxian doctrine often represents the socialism aspiring to evolve to communism eventually. Then, the word communism is often seen as the enemy of Liberalism promoting individuals' liberty and autonomic right. However, there is another form of communism defying the existence of one single state authority commanding economy, the means of resource distribution, and society (the interaction of individual citizens), which is compatible with Liberalism. 

 

The United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) was the former suzerain nation of the socialist nations following the orthodox Marxist doctrine advocating for the socioeconomic evolution towards communism. The USSR no longer exists while there are still remaining remnants of the nations which still retain the Soviet style socialism. These remnants are controversial because many of them seem to have abandoned their original political principle. Furthermore, the main point of this essay is to affirm that the orthodox Marxism is not only the political philosophy supporting communism.

Some Asian socialist states ruled by a Communist/Marxian-socialist party seem to have diverted from the direction of their original communist ideal. They have actually adopted the intense capitalist practices while they self-proclaim to maintain their Marxist principle as their excuse to prop up their one-party dictatorship. Therefore, their characteristics are actually opposing to the communist ideal aspiring for the egalitarian socioeconomic state.

Cuba might be only one socialist nation maintaining the orthodox Marxian style communism in a legitimate way. It still keeps the state ownership based economy as well as the diverse distribution of resources securing their reasonable standard of living. At the same time, Cuban government implements the Soviet style autocratic paternalism to cohesively unify her individual citizens under the oppressive one-party authoritarianism suppressing individual liberty. This is the factor that the orthodox Marxism is not compatible with Liberalism.

By contrast, there is another form of communism called Anarch-Syndicalism  which aspires to establish the egalitarian socio-economy without an autocratic paternalism such as the orthodox Marxian proletariat dictatorship. Its economy and political administration are run by cooperative unions of individuals which are spontaneously formed by individuals' voluntary cooperation without a cohesive force of any authoritarian organisation. Therefore, it relies on each autonomic individual citizen to manage their own political administration with their free will free from authoritarian oppressions. 

This is a anarchist political philosophy defying the existence of nation state government, the cohesive institutionalised authoritarian organisation. This is a radical socialist political philosophy defying not only the oligarchy by the capitalist class elites manipulating socio-economy but also the monetary market economy demanding an intense conformity for all individual citizens as the means of production. This is a libertarian political philosophy promoting equal treatments to all individuals regardless of their gender, ethnic, and physical characteristic origins inside this mutualist community avoiding any stratified institutional administration. 

Anarch-Syndicalism is perhaps only one anarchism having been practised in real through the history. The Second Spanish Republic centred in Catalonia in the early 20th century was the innovative state adopting the Anarch-Syndicalist system for economy as well as political administration. Even though it lost the Spanish civil war then, it can be said to be reasonably successful enough to maintain the state under such an administration sufficient enough to continue fighting back. 

Their participatory economy, where various business decision-making processes of one firm are democratically managed by its trade union members, was successful enough to maintain the productivity required to fight against their opposing force. Because their profit was returned to each individual worker participating their production, the motivation of their daily business activities as well as their contribution to the entire commune was high enough to fight back against their opposing force. This can be compared to the direct democratic state of the ancient Athens where individual citizens were so proud of themselves as its non-expendable core-members of their state that they had such a strong voluntary spirit to keep fighting in a war.

In Japan, there were some politicians who were advocated to Anarch-Syndicalism before the World War 2 (WW2). Even though this policy was not put into practice in real, this political movement was influential to the various contemporary rebellious political factions against the contemporary Western capitalist imperialism. This influence is non-negligible for explaining the spiritualism of the contemporary status quo Touseiha administration during the WW2 despite their different political characteristics.

A former Japanese government bureaucrat Kunio Yanagida was inspired by an anarchist communist philosopher Kropotkin whereas he was a strong Japanese nationalist at the same time. Mr. Yanagida had a unique attitude towards the issue of the Japanese monarchy Tenno system. He attempted to restore the pre-modern traditional Tenno system linked to the original Shinto shamanism while criticising the current modern monarchism strongly tied up with the modern nation state and its modern state capitalism. His own plan was to establish an Anarch-Syndicalist state of Japan based on the decentralised pastoralist environment where all the autonomous individual habitants mutually cohabit together with their own free will.

The idea of Communism should not be monopolised by the orthodox Marxists; There is a variety of Communism which actually challenges against the orthodox Marxian style and is compatible with Liberalism. There have been various new political philosophical movements of challenging the combination of capitalism and modern nation state government. Michel Foucault was a remarkable philosopher accusing the oppressive characteristics of the entire modernity. 

Foucault's philosophy is often criticised as an anachronistic because he seemed to romanticise the pre-modern feudalist society to a certain extend. Yet, his theory clarifies how the emerging modernity with its nation state and capitalism has deteriorated individuality of autonomous individuals by forcing the conformity to the ruling class interests and the entire monstrous mechanism of the modern nation state. His idea was to respect each unique characteristic of individuals not undermined by an institutionalised socioeconomic structure, and his policy is often introduced as the postmodern Anarch-Syndicalism. 

In conclusion, Communism itself is not a bad idea as long as its form is compatible with Liberalism such as Anarch-Syndicalism. For the time being, capitalism with its monetary based market economy prevails as a popular socio-economy. Nevertheless, it is always worth off to brainstorm to evaluate any other future socio-economic alternative. Hence, Anarch-Syndicalism as a good form of Communism can be a good candidate.