European Civilization 7 (After the collapse of the Soviet Union)

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the beginning of a change to a new world order, and at this point the United States was being overtaken economically by Japan and Germany, but due to the issue of Germany's integration with East Germany, Japan was often the one to bear the brunt of the criticism. However, the Plaza Accord (a sudden doubling of the yen's appreciation) shifted the wealth accumulated in Japan to Southeast Asia, laying the foundations for the East Asian economic zone. This will probably continue with the EU European economic zone, the North American economic zone, and the Middle Eastern and Indian economic zones that are about to be formed, but when we consider what has happened in the United States and what has happened in Japan as a whole, we can see that globalization is based on the freedom of capital and trade, and aims to make the most of the idea of comparative advantage and to efficiently utilize the world's resources , but it seems that we also need to accept the diversity of civilizations and cultures to a certain extent. However, this is what the internationalists (pluralists) in the United States think, and in terms of practical benefits, British capital has special interests mainly in the Middle East and South Asia (Indian Ocean Rim), and this may be the breeding ground for various troubles.

 

Although we are still in the process of getting there, the new world order is a pluralistic economy, a world in which each economic sphere is managed by a small minority, and we could say that the international society is a pluralistic global oligarchy (the educated wealthy of each country governs). We have looked at this through the United States, but there is another phenomenon called the EU. This was formed with the help of an external force, the threat of the Soviet Union: the fifth principle (environmental principle and external principle), as Germany, France, and other European countries, which had fallen into decline, sought efficient ways to recover after the results of World War II. This movement is also an example of multipolarization, and can be said to be a precedent and an experimental attempt.

 

European civilization is facing the weakening of the British factor, the stagnation of the EU factor, and the external force: the fifth principle (environmental and external principles), Russia, which was the force of the Soviet Union's unfortunate youth and is now entering middle age with its dreams shattered, and America, after its golden age, may be entering a lonely old age.* However, European civilization had the power to purify problems that other civilizations did not have, so it may be worth paying attention to what new values: the first principle (principle of value) it will have in the future, and what kind of efficiency: the second principle (principle of improving living standards) and social structure: the third principle (principle of community development) it will exert based on them.

 

*The situation of each nation is likened to a human being, and is referred to as the youth, middle age, and old age periods. However, in many cases, this also includes the child generation, so it is possible that middle age (parent civilization) and childhood (child civilization) may coexist in the same era, or that old age (parent civilization) and youth (child civilization) may coexist in the same era.

 

Next, let's consider the cosmopolitan nature of European civilization. We mentioned cosmopolitanism earlier as a similarity to Islamic civilization, and explained in the section on Islamic civilization that a cosmopolitan civilization is "a civilization with weak central values, with separate secular states that are connected by a network." It seems that Jews and Christians also lived and worked in the Mamluk dynasty and Ottoman Turkey, which connected Islamic civilization with Italy, and it is likely that this kind of thinking existed before European civilization and was transferred from there. The Mamluk dynasty's trade know-how was passed on to Italian cities, and then to Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and England. In the first place, this way of thinking was not a purely European way of thinking, but rather spread through the Mediterranean and trade routes.

 

 On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution was not necessarily the fruition of a cosmopolitan civilization. Science was thriving in the Islamic world as well, but it did not reach that level, and China (the Ming Dynasty) had the potential to achieve it, but it did not achieve it. The Industrial Revolution was probably initially a local phenomenon, taking place in 18th century England.

 

all rights reseved to M Ariake

European Civilization 6 (After World War II and America)

Now, America after World War II has developed in a completely different way from after World War I. Since independence, America has been characterized by domesticism and Americanism (Monroe Doctrine). Initially, the birth of the country coincided with the realization of ideals on earth, and the country was positioned to develop and advance its vast domestic territory and the American continent without involvement from Europe. However, mainly due to the situation in Europe (not the situation in the United States) and the actions of Germany, Europe was warred twice and devastated, so hegemony was inevitably transferred to America, and this seems to have shaped the pattern of American diplomacy. First of all, America has been fundamentally nationalistic for a long time, so when it intervened in Europe and the world, it had to explain things to its people.

 

This was the case with Wilson's Fourteen Points, but even so, domestic public opinion did not stray from nationalism. However, Wilson's Fourteen Points were highly idealistic and at the same time proposed a comprehensive world organization (not something a politician busy with national affairs could have come up with). It can be imagined that the people who were able to come up with this were those who thought about such an ideal world on a daily basis. Also, this type of ideological politics may have been part of the American culture, but even so, intervention in World War II came after Japan had entered the war, and participation was only possible with the consent of the people.

 

After World War II, America took the lead in international politics, and the Americans explained the reasons for this to their citizens. The American economy and productivity were the only ones that remained intact, and the Communist Soviet Union was making great strides, but what appealed to the Americans was that America had already respected democracy and human rights during World War II (Atlantic Charter), and had also made adjustments to finance and trade with the former hegemonic power, Great Britain (Dumbarton Oaks Conference). In light of the devastation of World War I and World War II, America once again presented its ideas about the way the world should be to the American people, and these were accepted based on history.

 

After World War II, there was a battle between the Soviet communist ideals and the American ideals mentioned above, but this in itself may have led the world in a relatively better direction. Capitalist countries had to take into consideration low-income earners in their countries, so social security was established, income guarantees were provided, and consumption was maintained. Many colonies gained independence, and some of these countries developed. However, there were various problems along the way. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the four Middle East wars, the Afghan conflict, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq-Afghanistan War. America had long been a country of its own, but after World War II it has been fighting wars based on internationalism. Since the world system could not survive with countryism, it came up with a new concept and faced the postwar period, which could be said to have been a remarkable change. This is partly because the military-industrial complex was formed (Eisenhower's statement), and partly because war meant that poor young people could receive scholarships and go to college.

 

The new system was established through negotiations between the United States and the United Kingdom, but it was limited. The Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Western Europe was difficult to gain the support of the American people, so the threat of the Soviet Union was emphasized, and the United Kingdom also supported it because it could rely on the United States. The EC was established from the idea of peacefully and efficiently reconstructing Western Europe, which bore fruit in the EU at the end of the 20th century. The existence of the Soviet Union also strengthened the unity of Western countries, created the Eurodollar (centered in London) that was not subject to national (American) regulations, and fostered globalization.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 5 ( Vienna System , Potsdam System, the United States)

After World War II, America, which had been away from the battlefields of the European continent (like Britain, which had been away from the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars), rose to power. France, which had lost the Napoleonic Wars, became obsessed with Britain. However, Britain, which was the de facto loser in World War II, became obsessed with the United States. The Soviet Union (Russia) acted as a savior, just as it did in the Napoleonic Wars.

 

It is interesting to compare the Vienna System with the failed Potsdam System , but America had to make more of an effort than Britain. The reason is that under the Potsdam System, Prussia, Austria, and France, which were in the Vienna System, did not exist and had fallen into disuse, while Stalin's Soviet Union had a clearer ideology that could appeal to civilizations outside of Europe than Alexander I. The Cold War was born out of this structure, but let's remember the Vienna System here.

 

After the Vienna System, Britain and France, who had been fighting for a long time, made a reconciliation (1830), but France gradually drew closer to Russia. Russia and Britain fought here and there over colonies, and France maintained its interests from them. In the same way, Britain after World War II is thought to have protected its interests in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Those interests were probably related to the Middle East and South Asia. The reason why there have been endless problems from the Middle East to Myanmar in modern times is probably because of the complicated circumstances , and it was because of this that Britain was a valuable ally to the United States. For this reason, Britain was able to protect its interests to some extent as an intermediary after World War II.

 

On the other hand, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the revolutions in the Middle East suggest that a new phenomenon has arisen. Perhaps the power of the UK in this region, where it had been strong, is weakening, and it seems that this phenomenon was an attempt to push the UK into the EU. There may have been a trend to separate the zombie UK from the Middle East and South Asia, return it to the European civilization , and establish an independent economic zone in the Middle East.

 

We have considered the Vienna System and the Potsdam System. The Vienna System was the basic system of Pax Britannica, while the Potsdam System was supposed to be the basic system of Pax Americana, but the reason this did not happen was because the world had become more complex compared to the time of the Napoleonic Wars. This is also symbolized by the fact that the Versailles System before the Potsdam System did not last long. The Vienna System prepared the hegemony of Britain, but Germany, the United States, and Russia rose from this stability, while the Versailles System was a system to maintain Britain's hegemony, but it was a system that could not have been established without the assistance of the United States, which was already a hegemonic challenger, and the only way to suppress another challenger, Germany, was through this system, but the United States never participated in this system. In contrast, the Potsdam System was a system in which Britain gave up hegemony, supported the hegemony of the United States, and suppressed the Soviet Union and Germany, but this time, East Asian countries including Japan rose from the periphery.

 

Let's think about the United States. Geographically, the United States was able to distance itself from the world system centered on the United Kingdom more than Germany or Russia, but it was still firmly under British hegemony until the Civil War. After the Civil War, the United States was once again taken by British hegemony, but as industry developed, it was grabbed by the neck by British capital and was incorporated back into British hegemony. As a result of the First World War (a surprising outcome of an accidental event), it became clear that Britain and France could not maintain their hegemony, and hegemony itself was transferred to the United States in the 1920s. Perhaps they intended it to be a refuge, but the outbreak and outcome of the Second World War led to the concentration of production and economy in the United States, so it seems that they stayed there. Looking at the case of the United States, where the hegemony is centered depends not only on the production and economic power of the country, but also on whether it is militarily safe, whether its politics are stable domestically and diplomatically, and whether the people's insight (especially the ruling class) is solid. The decline of a former hegemonic nation seems to be clearly manifested in its inability to protect its excessively expanded interests by force as it expanded. A good example would be the British duplicitous diplomacy during World War I (Hussein-McMahon Agreement, Sykes-Picot Agreement, Balfour Declaration). Therefore , although the modern United States was able to pursue expansionism after World War II, there is a possibility that it may move to reduce its hegemony.

all rights reserved to M Ariake

 

European Civilization 4 ( Germany , Russia)

Let us now consider the newly emerging powers Germany and Russia. These two countries rose to prominence as they were used by Britain to suppress France, but they developed industry for their own needs, and as a result, movements to seek democracy, markets, and resources arose. However, as they were latecomers, they had no choice but to respond in a coercive and combative manner. The United States is also a latecomer, but due to its vast land area, abundant resources, and geographical location, it was able to act more freely than Europe, and a frontier culture developed. However, this did not prevent the Civil War. This was probably due to the influence of Britain. Latecomers Russia and Germany also needed to change the state of the world system in order to achieve their own goals , and since these latecomers were reforms from above, with a conservative nature, they also needed to control the domestic situation. After the Napoleonic Wars, Russia briefly assumed a leading position in Europe (during the reign of Alexander I), but this resulted in the Decembrist Rebellion, which was a bourgeois democratic demand, and then Nicholas I's reactionary politics. The Crimean War challenged the world system and the failure of the rebellion led Russia to move towards democratization and industrialization again (during the reign of Alexander II and III). However, this did not last in Russia due to repeated terrorist attacks, and a reactionary government emerged (Nicholas II), leading to the Russo-Japanese War and World War I. Looking at it this way, we can see that in the case of Russia, periods of domestic reform and global expansion alternated. During this period of global expansion, Russia mainly caused friction with Britain, but the main expansion had already ended during the reign of Peter I, and was due to the pursuit of resources (such as furs) and the flight of peasants from within the country, but the expansion into Manchuria, Central Asia, and Ottoman Turkey seems to have been in search of trade or by heading for the sea.

 

The Pax Britannica era was the period following the end of the Long War between England and France (Second Hundred Years' War), during which Russia, due to its domestic situation, began to appear as a disruptor of the world system. England and Russia fought in Eurasia for a while, and Russia stood in the way of England as a power to replace France. However, after defeats in the Crimean War (1851), the Russo-Turkish War (1872), and the Russo-Japanese War (1905), and civil wars in Russia, England gained a cooperative relationship with Russia and entered the First World War. In this light, the conflict between England and Russia may have had an aspect of a proxy war between England and France, a rival country. Pax Britannica was threatened by the industrial development of Germany and America, but Germany and America rose to power in the 1870s, and if Pax Britannica began in 1815, then there are roughly 55 years between the two. During this time, it was Russia that stood in Britain's way militarily in various ways, and France, which had been defeated in the Napoleonic Wars, was maneuvering skillfully behind the scenes. This point will be useful when looking at the relationship between the United States and Britain after World War II. Russia's geographical location may have been the reason it was able to compete with Britain even though it was industrially immature (and to some extent, France, Britain's former rival, may have supported Russia). This may still be the case today. Russia's ability to exert a great influence on international politics even though it is industrially immature is likely to remain unchanged even today, as long as it has the support of forces that seek to rival the hegemonic nations of the world system.

 

Now, Germany is a latecomer after Britain and France, with a small land area, insufficient resources, and oppressed by its geographical location (the opposite of the United States and Russia). Germany is a country that was formed in the process of growing as a barrier against France. However, its prototype seems to be the Holy Roman Empire. The surrounding great powers considered Germany a buffer zone for their own convenience and did not want the Holy Roman Empire to be revived. It may also have been because the citizens of the small German states were democratic. Russia, Prussia, and Austria viewed the German states as a buffer zone against the spread of the French Revolution. Politically, the German states were divided into small states, but economically, the German states were strengthening their ties. Prussia possessed the Rhineland, an industrially important exclave, and in that sense became the leader of northern Germany and formed the Northern German Customs Union. In a sense, the establishment of the German Empire may have been a template for the formation of the modern EU. However, the difference was that Prussia, the leader of the North German Customs Union, had its political base in East Prussia, and Prussia was a military state that had been formed as a bulwark against the French Revolution.

 

In addition to this, Germany's geographical location determined its fate. Located in the center of Europe, Germany had to repeatedly create friction with its surroundings in order to develop. There were many complex forces acting on Germany, including growing economic power, conservative political power, desire to expand, and the reaction of the world system called Pax Britannica. As a result, Germany's economy became a military state, due to the conservative atmosphere and pressure from all around, or in harmony with past success stories (Seven Years' War, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War). The strong image of Germany as a scientific and military state may have been the reason why Germany's actions caused an excessive reaction from those around it. In Bismarck's time, Germany managed to cover this up with diplomacy, but compared to the United States and Russia, Germany was perceived as a scientific and military state, which may have been seen as a blatant challenge to Pax Britannica. It is also likely that Germany incurred great resentment from France, which relied on this world system.

 

Even as Germany expanded, it could not break away from its limited framework. For example, it did not have the idea of attacking Egypt like Napoleon. It also did not have the idea of taking advantage of the war in Europe to acquire interests outside of Europe like Britain did. Even though Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey during World War I, it seems that it did not even think about dominating the Middle East.* This may be because the British navy was still strong at that time and the control of the Mediterranean was important. This was also evident in Germany's attempt to reach Baku and Iran by land route during World War II, and the tactics of using U-boats extensively also seemed to be aimed at disrupting the control of the seas of the superior enemy.

 

* During World War I, Germany and Turkey dominated Iraq and Syria and had a great influence in Iran. However, because they operated on both the East and West fronts, it would have been difficult for them to take military action in the Middle East.

 

Germany was strongly militaristic from the history of its rise, but it was basically a land power, so being sandwiched between France and Russia may have been a threat. For Germany, its participation in World War I itself was probably an accident at first. However, the progress of the war itself showed Germany's limitations. Germany was a closed land power, and it was difficult to expand outside of Europe because it did not have a navy, so it sought a way out by either unifying Europe or expanding into eastern Eurasia by land. In World War II, freed from the threat of a pincer attack by Russia and France, it headed toward Africa (including Egypt) and Russia, but it seems that this hasty expansion into many directions was due to such German complexes. Now that it was not blocked, it wanted to conquer as much as possible.

 

Germany produced many talented people under such fateful historical pressure, but for some reason it did not have political power. Although it had a genius named Bismarck for a time, it was a country that did not easily have the power to purify itself, and this lack of power was clearly evident in the process of Hitler's rise and his policies, but the root of this may be that the power of this blocked country was carried by its past military glory and conservatism. After World War II, this blockage was lifted by cooperation with France and the EU, and the country lost its military glory due to two defeats and the crimes of the Nazis, and East Germany was separated for a long time. Modern Germany may be viewed with caution, but even if there was a backlash from history, it seems that it has developed a considerable democratic power to purify itself.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

 

 

European Civilization 3 ( Britain and France )

Efficiency: The power of the second principle (principle of improving living standards) is the technological power that tries to realize a certain value, in other words, the power to improve living standards through technology. Along with improvements in technology, the reorganization of the power of social structure: the power of the third principle (principle of community development) also appeared along with improvements in efficiency. The French Revolution was the beginning of the civil revolution, and the formation of organizational power that invested the power of the entire nation in the national goal. The beginning of this social structure power originally occurred in England, with the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, but it is necessary to note that the innovation of social structure power occurred earlier than the Industrial Revolution. This order was the same in France and the United States, but it was reversed in later developing countries. The social structure was innovated after the introduction of efficiency (Germany, Russia, Japan). Parliament and journalism appeared as systems to draw out cooperation based on the spontaneous will of the people, but it was the later developing countries Germany, Russia, and Japan that appeared in the form of forcing the innovation of social structure from above before waiting for spontaneity.

 

Let's go back to Britain. The power of Britain's social structure: the power of the third principle (the principle of community development) was not something that was consciously sought. Incidentally, the Industrial Revolution was probably the same. Britain's social structure power arose from the gradual restriction of royal power, and the background to this is that Britain had been centralizing relatively early. The conflict between (royalty, Catholicism, privileged merchants) and (aristocracy, the Church of England, Puritans), followed by the Tories and Whigs, had already laid the groundwork for the effectiveness of democracy. In other words, democracy is a "process of the purification of power," and the essence of the effectiveness of democracy lies in the gradual purification of vested interests that are no longer in tune with the times and tend to commit injustice. In that sense, Britain also demonstrated this in the establishment of the industrial society in the 19th century. This purification power is noteworthy, as it has not been seen in other civilizations until now.And in the case of Britain, it is also worth noting that this purification power was carried out by an oligarchy of aristocrats for a long time.*

 

*British democracy was formed by limiting the power of the monarchy. The rising gentry and merchants joined forces against the power of the vested interests of the great nobles and privileged merchants, which led to the formation of political parties such as the Tories and Whigs. In the case of Britain, the monarchy was associated with policies that did not match the national interest in a broad sense (for example, James II's cooperation with Louis XIV), so there were special circumstances in which the monarchy was abandoned by the great nobles. However, Britain must have been troubled about which direction to take at this point, and Louis XIV's enormous influence seems to have worked in the direction of uniting Britain and the Netherlands. This is an interesting point in the formation of Britain's foreign policy, just as it was in the era of Queen Elizabeth when they opposed Spain (this may also apply to the later Anglo-Japanese Alliance). However, the Glorious Revolution cannot be avoided as being remarkable because the oligarchy itself decided on this policy, since the monarchy had been expelled at that time. I think that even when we look at the British Parliament in the 19th century, we are amazed at the judgment of the British oligarchy in the many compromises and negotiations. In Bagehot's British constitutional theory, he touches on the authoritative and effective parts of the constitution, and says that the effective power is held by the middle class, taking into account compromises with tradition. This means that rapid changes in society should be avoided, because tradition is an accumulation of customs, and the authority of tradition should be respected to a certain extent, and necessary matters in society should be decided by the middle class through discussion. Thus, during the Whig era, Britain won the Seven Years' War, the Industrial Revolution progressed, and the Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent Vienna System became the Tory era. After the first electoral reform in 1830, the electoral law was revised three times over a period of time, the Corn Laws were abolished, and the House of Lords Act was enacted, gradually changing the social structure. During this time, the Whigs, who were the liberal forces, ended their role after passing through the Liberal Party, and their base sank due to the rise of the working class and the growing disparity in the middle class.

 

This is where France differs. In France, the monarchy and the nobility were fighting over who should pay for the budget deficit, but they dragged the masses into it, and the French, who had already seen and learned about the British and American revolutions, rushed straight for democracy. They used that momentum to spread democracy and nationalism throughout Europe (the Napoleonic Wars).

 

It was fine for England until the local reforms were transferred to its relative, America, but when it grew into a fanatical religion in France, it became wary of France, which was trying to make greater strides in the economy and military by exerting the power of its people more than England, and tried to suppress it (Conference of Vienna). Talleyrand was originally a person who wanted to stop the revolution within the framework of a British-style aristocratic oligarchy, so he probably aimed to compromise with England along these lines and build a long-term relationship with England. After the July Revolution (1830) and the establishment of the Orléans dynasty, Talleyrand began negotiations with England (the British foreign secretary was Palmerston of the Whig Party). This also ended in an incomplete way, but it could be said that this was the sober end of an era. After that, France experienced various political systems, with royalists, bourgeoisie, and democrats all mixed together, but in diplomacy, France, which had often been the hegemon of the European continent since Louis XIV, ended its conflict with England (although there were skirmishes) and began to cooperate with England in a broad sense until World War II.

 

*There may be some problems with how to interpret the policies of Napoleon III and the Franco-Russian alliance. There was a struggle between republicans and royalists within France, and the military was also strong, leading to the Boulanger and Dreyfus affairs. Napoleon's military glory and expansionism were also present, but France, along with Britain, was on the side of protecting vested interests. During the Vienna System, France was rather suppressed, and this was the era of Russia and Austria. France's advance resumed under the Orléans dynasty in 1830, and took a leap forward with the February Revolution of 1848 (a global revolution), but despite Napoleon III's advance into the world, cooperation with Britain seems to have been basically maintained. This was probably because France shared the same opinions as Britain in a broad sense regarding Russia and Austria (the Ottoman Turkish problem) (which is why the sale of the Suez Canal was also concluded). At this point, in 1871, the German Empire emerged as a disruptive factor. Germany's emergence brought France and Russia closer together, and France then tried to counter Britain as well. However, Russia was weak, and in the end Russia reconciled its interests with Britain, which led to World War I.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 2 ( comparison between European and Indian civilization )

The subsequent development of European civilization followed a different course from Islamic civilization. In Islam, the caliph, the authority of the faith, lost real power (political rights), and the Sultan emerged as a political figure through the Great Amir, but in European civilization, the Pope, the leader of Catholicism, gained authority by lending his support to political unification. The coronation of Charles in the Frankish Kingdom (although before that, there was the Donation of Pepin), and Charles' kingdom could be said to have occurred amid the threat of Islam (Henri Pirenne). Europe eventually entered the feudal era, and churches and monasteries in Europe contributed to the expansion of agricultural production and the livelihood of the people*. It was the Holy Roman Emperor who attempted to centralize power in a decentralized state and utilize the church, but the church ended up gaining power, and this is where the distinctive characteristics of European civilization were born.

 

*Similar situations have occurred many times in European civilization. The Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the development of America, and colonial development. It seems that European expansion was not necessarily driven solely by economic reasons. If European civilization is in decline in modern times, it may be largely due to the loss of religious energy and the inability to find a substitute for it . It may be that they have lost sight of the ethical values of their own civilization.

 

European civilization was a world where spiritual and secular leaders were separated, and for a time, the spiritual was superior to the secular in a material sense. The materialist view of history holds that the secular world, for example the economy, shapes the spiritual, but the Middle Ages in Europe was a time when people were serious about creating an ideal community with a Catholic spirit. This tendency was not only seen in medieval Europe, but also in India during the Gupta Dynasty.*1 However, the difference between India and Europe is that the Catholic Church was an organization more independent from the state (secular organization), and unlike India at that time, people in Europe gradually became interested in economics and trade. The development of secular society caused people to question religion, which led to the Renaissance and the Reformation. However, this is also a matter of degree, and the comparison between European and Indian civilization is endlessly interesting.*2

 

*1In India, there was a renaissance (a revival of the classics) with works such as the Code of Manu, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata, but in the case of the Gupta dynasty (5th century!), this was the beginning of feudalism, whereas the European Renaissance was an event that marked the end of religious feudalism as feudalism drew to an end, cities developed, and freedom began to sprout, so the two are different. After the Renaissance, development-oriented, secular Protestantism was born in Europe, the spiritual world suddenly became lively, and gave birth to the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment, whereas India sank into the world of Tantra after the Gupta dynasty.

 

*2When comparing European and Indian civilizations, the similarity is that the spirit tried to dominate the secular world. However, the values of that spirit - the first principle (principle of value) - were contrasting. While Europe is monistic (although Catholicism is not necessarily monistic, as it has created many saints), India was a civilization that tolerated plurality. The revival of classics in the Gupta dynasty was the revival of Brahmins against Buddhism (knights and merchant class), and the content was qualitatively different from the revival of classics, philosophy, and thought in Greece and Rome in Europe. Although the content was different, it was a revival, and they tried to make it a guideline for the way the community should be, but in the case of Europe, this aspect may have been more pronounced not in the Renaissance but in the Reformation. While the Renaissance was to a certain extent for the aristocracy, the Reformation had an impact on the masses. The revival of classics in the Gupta dynasty, the Code of Manu and the Gita, were for the Brahmins and aristocracy, and the rule of the masses by the Brahmins was also the revival of the secular world through the revival of the spirit. At the very least, the Hinduism that emerged during the Gupta period could be said to be an affirmation of Indian humanity. Although the north and south of India are different, they are the same in the sense of Hinduism, and perhaps the spirit of Indian humanity was subsequently buried in the materialistic world of civilization.

 

This is a sketch of two civilizations (European civilization and Indian civilization) next to Islamic civilization, but European civilization also inherited the cosmopolitan elements of Islamic civilization. In modern Europe, Italian city-states were initially dominant, probably due to trade in the Mediterranean. This hegemony was deeply connected to Islamic civilization (Mamluk dynasty), but this hegemony was overturned by the rise of Spain and Portugal, who rounded the Cape of Good Hope and discovered the New World, and was then passed on to the Netherlands. During the British era, the Industrial Revolution occurred, and humanity entered a new stage. Up until now, civilization has progressed mainly through the power of social structure: the third principle (the principle of community development), that is, through organizational reform, but we are now in a stage where the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving living standards) has begun to become much stronger*.

 

*Before the Industrial Revolution, there was little difference in military power, and great changes occurred due to improvements in organization. The most significant and rapid changes were the founding of Islamic civilization by Mohammed, who integrated and reorganized the Arabs, and the rise of the Mongol Empire by Genghis Khan. However, there were similarities between the two, in that they controlled trade and information, were relatively tolerant of religion and culture, and provided a social structure that worked hard to ensure security in the commercial sphere: the power of the third principle (principle of community development). In terms of continuity, Islam had a universal religion, while the Mongol Empire did not, which may have been one of the reasons why it ended so quickly. In the case of Mongolia, they respected Islamic merchants on land and sea (the international language of the Mongol Empire was Persian), so there is some overlap between Islamic civilization and the Mongol Empire. It was a merchant civilization based on information and mobility. Therefore, the Age of Discovery in Europe may have been a response to the challenge of the Mongol Empire.

 

all rights reseved to M Ariake

European Civilization 1 (The flow of European civilization )

The flow of European civilization

 

A quick look at the history of European civilization:

This includes Greek civilization, the Roman Empire, the Germanic kingdoms, the Merovingian and Carolingian, the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy, Italian cities, Hanseatic cities, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Russia, Germany and America.

 

It is often said that European civilization is based on three things: Greek and Roman civilization, Christianity, and Germanic culture. Greece symbolizes the spirit of science, Rome the pragmatism, and both symbolize maritime trade (monetary economy)*1. After such abundance, Greek philosophy and then Christianity entered the Roman Empire. Christianity was not formed in a simple, organized form like Islam, but rather developed initially in the Greek region while resisting authority. Later, with the decline in the population of the Roman Empire and probably a change in the weather environment, the Germanic peoples began to migrate in 375, and the Roman Empire split in 395, with the eastern side becoming Byzantine and the western side being occupied by Germanic peoples. The European civilization we know today may not be the Byzantine Empire that served as a barrier against the other civilizations in the east, but rather the civilization*2 formed by the initially scattered Germanic peoples.

 

*1 Greek and Roman civilizations are often compared to European civilizations, and while Greek civilization's scientific spirit, philosophical tastes, and division of the polis are similar to European civilizations, Roman civilization's pragmatism, academic methods (technology such as roads and water supply, legal codes), and centralized politics and diplomacy are similar to those of the United States(internet ). Therefore, what the Romans did may be of some help when considering what Americans should think and do. For example, disparities arose within the Roman Empire even in their home country of Italy, the empire was established through two pipelines: foreign rule and slave rule , and the minority rulers in foreign countries were appeased by gradually granting Roman citizenship. It may also be of help when considering how such things led to the decline of the empire.

 

*2 When we think of Europe, we tend to think of Christianity, but it is thought that the original primitive Christianity may have originated through Greece (Eastern Rome: Greek Orthodox Church). However, if the separation of religion and politics, and of the spiritual and secular, is one of the characteristics of the Christian civilization (where it differs from Islam, China, India, and Russia), then it may be said that Christianity has evolved over the course of history. In the Middle Ages, there was also a phenomenon in which the spiritual world tried to prevail over the secular world. However, because of this separation, the secular world sometimes took over the spiritual world. As a result, Western Europe came to dominate the world with capitalism and democracy, so Christianity should be understood as a religion and value that evolved along with the history of Western Europe.

 

The Germanic peoples' characteristics include the vassal system and the people's assembly. The Germanic peoples' system was combined with the Roman civilization's land loan system and the Christian church's governance of the people (the church took over the administrative power of Rome, which was lost due to the Germanic invasion), and the external force of Islamic power: the fifth principle (environmental principle and external principle) was added to it, and medieval Europe was born. *1 The great migration of the Germanic peoples, and the repeated wave invasions of foreign peoples such as the subsequent migrations of the Magyars, Avars, and Normans, are characteristic of the history of European civilization. In other words, it is highly likely that European civilization was initially the final destination of the migration of peoples, which was more greatly influenced by them than Chinese or Islamic civilizations. *2. In response to this situation, European civilization's response: the fourth principle (principle of reaction ) was to employ the Germanic peoples as a means of security, or to make them masters, and the Christian church was responsible for administration. And securing a livelihood meant promoting rural development inland based on the defense of livelihoods, as farmland was destroyed by the disruption of the social system caused by the movement of different ethnic groups, and the closure of the sea by the advance of Islamic forces.

 

*1 Initial social structural power in Western Europe: The third principle (principle of community development) was the Germanic vassalage system and the popular assembly. It is thought to have had the Roman land-loan system and the church's governance of the people at its core. However, the state of the Germanic tribes and the characteristics of the places they invaded combined in various ways, which led to the formation of a Europe rich in individuality (for example, the Franks and northern Gaul, the Lombards and northern Italy, etc.).

 

*2 Here, four characteristics of Europe emerge. A society with a strong military consciousness and its social structural power: The basis of the third principle (principle of community development) is the aristocratic characteristics that emerged from the subordinate system of the Germanic peoples. There are also democratic elements that are related to Roman civilization but also to Germanic characteristics, namely the senate, plebeian assembly or democratic elements. The Christian church strengthened the civil elements of the region during the chaotic period of Germanic invasions. And the state of division, which is a superficial phenomenon of security. Unlike the civilizations of China and India, European civilization is composed of a loose universality and a state of division, and has aspects similar to the cosmopolitan civilization of Islam and has also been influenced by it.

all rights reserved to M Ariakr

Civilizations and value 2８ ( advantage of its hollow structure )

Regarding values, I have been thinking about how they are formed, and I have been thinking about values that are formed by external forces and values that are formed by internal forces. And I decided to limit my consideration to Japan. The image obtained from this is that new social forces are trying to overcome old social forces in Japanese society. There is also the impression that the very nature of social science is about to change. In other words, the situation is a combination of Japan's unique circumstances and general trends in the world as a whole.

 

Five items were listed as circumstances unique to Japan. These include 1. aging and declining birthrate, 2. fiscal deficit, 3. new industrial revolution, 4. natural disasters (earthquakes, weather changes), and 5. diplomacy (USA, China), but it is new industries that are starting to take center stage and have an influence. It seems like a revolution . The essence of the new industrial revolution is that it is deeply related to the mechanization of intelligence. America is at the forefront in fields such as ITC, big data, and AI. Cars are also moving toward self-driving, but what will happen when this trend reaches its ultimate stage? Isn't that the automation of politics and government? However, in order to reach that point, it seems that the evolution of social science is a prerequisite. I believe that the evolution of social science can only be achieved by dynamically grasping the concepts established in social science . The new industrial revolution is deeply related to the other four items. Picking up related data groups and how the power of those numbers is related will provide answers to each of the four questions about what is needed to solve the problem.

 

The issue of automated driving in politics and government is actually a problem that is difficult for both the United States and China to address. America has the idea of democracy, and China has the idea of communism. Communism in China means that the Communist Party rules the country, and in that sense both the United States and China can be said to be countries with clear "values."

 

In contrast, it may be better for Japan to take advantage of its hollow structure and aim for autonomous politics and administration. Wouldn't it be better to have values change with the times, just like capitalism, where capital gradually moves to places where it can be profitable, without having hard values like in the United States and China?

 

In my research on civilization, I have mentioned the ``Five Forces.'' These were 1. Value, 2. Technical efficiency force, 3. Social structural force, 4. Reaction force, and 5. External force. However, each of them had different values, and each had its own expansion and space.I believe that the 30 years since 1991 were a time when Japan had no value on its own. It must have been a time when there was no "value" in the middle of the hollow structure, and the world was drifting without being steered. From a Japanese perspective, this may not have felt strange. Originally, the Japanese people were said to be a hybrid race.

 

However, even without this sense of discomfort, the four issues mentioned above - the aging population, declining birthrate, budget deficits, disasters (earthquakes, climate change), and foreign policy - have become increasingly serious. The question is what values should we approach these real-world issues with and how should we utilize the five strengths? Rather than having rigid values, we should have the prototype of Japan's quasi-civilization as a concise model. I think it's important. In that sense, I think it will be necessary for future Japanese people to reconsider the Edo period, which is now a different world. This is because our undeniable value lies there.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

Civilizations and value 2７ ( cooperate with civilizations and quasi-civilizations )

I have also looked in some detail at Edo period as a more concise example of inner value . The purpose was to see the characteristics of changes in the mentality of the social order. But that's not all. In addition to Western knowledge, it may be necessary for Japanese people today to look back and deeply observe themselves, especially the Edo period. If you don't know your own roots , you won't even know what your value is. Perhaps this is the reason why we are drifting through time. The new discipline could be said to be a discipline aimed at discovering and merging introverted and extroverted values.

 

I have written on the theme of civilization and values, but thinking of civilization as a living organism and classifying it may not fit with the way we think about SDGs and ESG in this day and age. This is because these concepts seem to be a statement of general ideals in the global economy. There is also the issue of climate change. This is an issue that must be addressed as a whole. However, on the other hand, conflicts between civilizations for survival are unlikely to disappear. Unless China democratizes, industrial decoupling will be inevitable. This is an opportunity for Japan to usher in a new major industrial revolution . However, in the long term, it would be even better for the Far East if China were to continue to democratize without splitting up. This is because it led to the establishment of a common market called the CU (China Union) at a relatively early stage, rather than a common market that has gone through a long process like the EU. However, looking at what China is doing in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia, it appears to be a step beyond its traditional assimilation policy. These regions have a long history with China. Furthermore, the People's Republic of China, which was born after a long period of rule by large landowners, large merchants, and bureaucrats, can be called a new civilization.Although there may be a return to a collective leadership system, it may not be democratized.

 

Therefore, although they have deep economic ties, politically they remain at odds, and for this reason Japan must cooperate with civilizations and quasi-civilizations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. First of all, we need to become more familiar with these civilizations and understand their value. We are entering a difficult time if we just follow America's global strategy. It would be desirable to be able to gather information from Pacific and Indian Ocean countries and make recommendations to the United States based on that information. In that sense, the expansion of the United Nations University may be one of the opportunities . We aim to make SDGs and ESG more localized , but on the other hand, it would be good for Japan to have a research institution that makes them universal. Furthermore, compiling a great world history, as　Mitsukuni Tokugawa compiled a great history of Japan, may have a positive influence on the world, just as it later influenced Japan. And this will become a major force in gathering information on the Pacific and Indian Ocean countries.

 

All rights reseved to M Ariake

Civilizations and value 26 ( political and social governance to be determined automatically )

On the other hand, in the private sector, C (creative work), M (managerial work), anprofessionals are involved in these. If anything, it may be that more people are involved H (welfare work, etc.) remain, but it is said that only a small number of  H (welfare work) in the private sector. Some C, M, and H will remain in the public sector , but I think many people will have their own jobs while sharing public duties as citizens.

 

In countries like China , the Communist Party will likely advocate public ownership of productive power . However, in a democratic country, from a process standpoint, democratization must precede the public ownership of productive power . However, even in China, although it is a developing dictatorship, it is a society that has already achieved a certain degree of development and has reached the forefront of the international economy, so it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that the country is owned not by its people but by a single party. I wonder if this will come to be seen as nothing more than sophistry. This may also lead to the proposition that it is the people or the party that can develop a nation. The question of whether such a model can be shared among civilizations will also arise .

 

New democracy and new scholarship are a ` `fight back'' and an answer to fill the gap* that has arisen due to the inability of social structure to keep up with technological efficiency. Asking why social science has fallen so far behind* will lead us to search for the value of a new era . It is also the content of the response to the challenges of the times , and will enrich the content .

 

*Social science has fallen behind.

The lagging behind in the social sciences seems to be symbolized by the fact that countries eventually find themselves in a state of conflict, which leads to conflicts and wars to repeat themselves. In democratic countries, this may be seen in populism's inability to truly solve the country's problems and its inability to quickly resolve problems with vested interests. Even in autocratic countries, it may appear as time passes when it becomes impossible to maintain strong control. What will appear over time in democratic and authoritarian states is a decline in their overall power. A situation began to emerge in which military power was emphasized in order to prevent deterioration, and eventually a state of war developed.

 

do not understand how comprehensive power was created or what the various forces that support comprehensive power are. They are simply asserting their opinions and acting as part of it. The reason why the claims of such parts cannot be sorted out and adjusted is because there are ``authorities'' in each area who are the subjects of the power of the parts. The overall deterioration of power can be attributed to the fact that the relationship between these (partial) people in power and the masses has become difficult. In particular, the latter relationship between those in power and the masses emerges as a difference in the ``filter'' between democratic and coercive systems.

 

However, what both have in common is that it is better for political and social governance to be determined automatically according to the situation rather than being determined arbitrarily. Isn't it better than letting the situation go unaddressed and eventually becoming unable to adjust and leading to war? This way of thinking may become an important aspect of the idea of a ``new social science.''

 

The essence of the problem lies in the evolution of social structural forces , and in bringing them closer to the speed of development of technological efficiency forces .  How will AI, big data, ICT , robots , autonomous driving using electricity or hydrogen , new energy, etc. be connected with social stcturural power? Can it become a smart city or smart state? Driving a car is not the only thing that will be automated. I think it means that politics, the economy, and society itself will become partially automated. These will ultimately prove the richness of the content of the new industrial revolution .

 

*Smart State

 In a narrow sense, a smart city can be described as city management based on data that combines ICT, AI, and big data. Just as such cities were born, city-states were established, and eventually nations were established, will a smart state be established in the form of European civilization? Or will a smart state be established by the nation from above, like in China? The forms of its development will vary. Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Stockholm are highly rated as smart cities, and Estonia is a smart state. It is interesting because it feels similar to the geographical scope of the former Hanseatic League. The atmosphere of a smart state's society will differ greatly depending on whether it is a city federation or a state that forcibly adopts new technologies from above.

all rights reseved M Ariake

Civilizations and value 25 ( The new image of ancient Greece )

A new industrial revolution has the potential to significantly change this instability , and if it succeeds, we will move even closer to an economy that does not require labor * 1. If anything, this may lead to a new reexamination of the content of public service . It is conceivable that we will enter an era* 2 in which work that is currently considered public service will be shared . Basic income and work sharing for public and semi-public services. I wonder if its appearance will become roughly similar to that of ancient Greece.

 

 *1 Economy that does not require labor

As AI progresses from special general purpose to general general purpose, There is an opinion that the private sector has C (  creative ) , M (management) , and H (hospitality)and other human resources will be unnecessary. In this case, the only elements input into industry are capital and technological elements. In this case, the extreme hypothesis that humans will receive only profits from the factors of production and spend their leisure time will arise. However, rather than reaching that point, it is likely that some form of work sharing will gradually emerge. This is because work is also one of human needs. One type of industry would be public service or public work.

 

*2 An era where public affairs are work-sharing

In an age of aging and declining birthrate, many parts of public affairs are institutionally designed by a quasi-market supported by medical insurance and long-term care insurance. However, many of these, including welfare, may have to be supported by public spending for a while. However, apart from such insurance and welfare, there are many public services that are familiar to people's daily lives. Even today, such public duties are still carried out by a relatively small number of people . (For example, a city with a population of 150,000 people may have one or two people in charge of disaster prevention.) However, there is still a need for volunteers in many areas. On the other hand, volunteer service activities can be tedious and restrictive, so I think that public service or public work, including volunteer work, will become a work-sharing occupation. Taking a look at Scandinavia and other countries, it will be necessary to redefine public service and work-sharing as a part of business, in order to create a society in which people can survive on basic income and work-sharing.

 

Natural disasters, that is, natural disasters, are currently impossible to control, and the only question is whether we can minimize disasters caused by human factors . As for diplomacy, as we discussed in the civilization theory, in order to preserve our unique civilization as quasi-civilizations, it will be necessary for quasi-civilizations that are not major powers to cooperate with each other. It may be desirable to form a kind of federation .

　

Under the conditions of a new democratic culture and new scholarship that are gradually becoming clearer ,  the Equalization of human capital* 1 is progressing . At the same time, the generational balance will also move toward artificial equalization *2 . In the long run, the required workforce in private industry may gradually decline . For this reason, it seems that work sharing in public affairs is deeply related to the way people give meaning to their existence. Perhaps we are waiting for a ``mysterious outcome'' in which a new democracy determines the nature of the public ownership of productive power *3 .

 

*1 the Equalizationof human capital

A new democratic culture collects public opinion directly and unconsciously, so it does not make radical claims compared to elections that collect public opinion indirectly and consciously, and it does not necessarily lead to public opinion favoring the elderly (superficially). (Assuming that they aim for harmony in the long term rather than asserting their own interests), the result is that human capital consisting of men and women of all ages will become equalized. In addition, new scholarship will have to provide knowledge that can serve as the foundation for such a new democratic culture.

 

*2 Generational balance is also artificially equalized.

It is not enough to simply gather up direct and unconscious public opinion; by summarizing them, a comprehensively desirable picture can be discovered. This will ultimately lead to a balance across generations.

 

*3 New democracy determines the nature of public ownership of productive power

If a new democracy directly or unconsciously gathers public opinion, what kind of work style will people ultimately prefer? Perhaps they want to be guaranteed employment in a public institution, and on top of that, they want a moderate amount of work. Until now, ``labor'' has been necessary to produce the consumer goods and public goods that humans need. If machines are to replace many of the brains and physical labor, then we will need to create self-governing organizations so that we are not controlled by the machines or those who operate them.

Such a society, so to speak, would be like the former slaves being replaced by machines, and it might become something like the polis of ancient Greece.

The image of ancient Greece is not limited to that. This may lead to the revival of metaphysics in its relationship with synthesis. With the advent of AI, metaphysics, a discipline that imagines synthesis and wholeness, even if it is not backed by rationality or experimentation, may be reconsidered. This is because AI can connect concepts that are completely unpredictable, and in order for humans to catch up, humans themselves must improve their ability to connect concepts more intuitively.

all rights reserved M Ariake

Civilizations and value 2４ (constitutional revision , labor force)

If a new democracy and new academic science emerge in this way, the current debate over constitutional revision alone may become meaningless *1 . It will be necessary to keep a close eye on developments in other countries *2 in this area .

 

 *1 The current debate on constitutional revision will become meaningless.

Until now, discussions on constitutional revision have been aimed at increasing Japan's independence , but the relationship between the governing body and the people has changed from an indirect, conscious democracy to a direct, unconscious democracy. This is likely to become a central issue in constitutional revision. The idea of pacifism will probably be affected depending on which of these ideals of democracy one takes. The question of whether to adopt the idea of peace or to defend the large amount of overseas assets that have already been accumulated (which is closely related to the domestic financial situation), issues that are common even before the war, are also reflected in the filter of democracy. The answer will vary depending on the type .

 

*2 Movements in other countries

China is consciously trying to establish this kind of direct and unconscious approach under a powerful regime. However, since China is proceeding on the assumption that it will be ruled by the Communist Party, even if this new democracy becomes technically possible, there is naturally a risk that it will be used as a tool for authoritarian control. For these reasons, in the sense of decentralization, it is possible to consider the establishment of a new academic center that will compete with AI. The question is whether value lies in a single party that is biased, or whether value lies in the center of learning, but even if it is called the center of learning, under the current situation, imperfections remain. Alternatively, it may be expected that the current indirect democratic system will remain in some parts. The three powers are divided, and the separation of powers becomes four and five powers.

 

The aging population and declining birthrate will inevitably appear as a state of transition in the Japanese economy, as all men and women of all ages enter the labor force *1. If the supply capacity resulting from the labor force cannot keep up with the increase in medical expenses, the fiscal deficit will continue to increase due to the increase in welfare and medical expenses . Although the former can be covered by ``work style reform'' and the latter by a quasi-market system* 2 , ``public burdens'' will inevitably increase. Public burdens also redistribute income and can increase domestic demand and maintain economic growth, but public burdens that flow toward medical expenses may not lead to increased domestic demand.

 

*1 Employing all men and women of all ages into the labor force

The declining birthrate and aging population will reduce the labor force participation rate for some time. In order to overcome this situation, the introduction of robots and immigration may be considered, but from now on, it will probably be time for a ``society in which all citizens are dynamically engaged'' to include all men and women of all ages in the labor force. This is due to the timing of when pension payments begin, but there is a risk that introducing immigrants too easily will leave behind social problems. In fact, it is hoped that Japan will attract talented people from other countries, and Japan is currently looking for such an attraction. One way to make Japan more attractive would be to take advantage of the fact that the United Nations University headquarters is located in Tokyo and build a center of world policy scholarship in Japan, centered on the United Nations University.

 

Even with the introduction of robots and the cooperation of immigrants, it will be impossible to bring all Japanese people, young and old, into the labor force. The ideal would be to keep the economy running in a way that does not delay the start of pension payments as Japan recovers from the declining birthrate.

 

 *2 Quasi-market system

In an aging society with a declining birthrate, medical insurance and long-term care insurance will probably become financially strained. This is because it is highly dependent on the labor force participation rate. These insurance systems are industries in which markets have been artificially created through insurance premiums and public burdens. If the burden of insurance premiums is insufficient, it will be supported by public burden, but in the case of Japan, in a macro sense, this means collecting taxes (and government bonds) from the private sector that has overseas assets. It's here. However, if overseas assets are lost due to foreign influence, it will no longer be possible to do so, so it may be inevitable that Japan will eventually increase its military power (even if it focuses mainly on security relations through diplomacy).  Considering this, it is important that some industry (especially manufacturing) remains in the country, and a weaker yen may be more ideal than a strong yen. This is because the quasi-market system that supports medical and long-term care insurance is based on a substantive market system. Each of these constitutes a part of the economy, but there should be a concept of a more fundamental economic base.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

Civilizations and value 23 (progress of social science based on physics imperialism )

However, we must also point out that we are now at a point where it is possible to technologically advance democracy. Democracy has become technologically capable of absorbing the will of the people from the indirect to the direct, from the conscious to the unconscious. Is it better to leave the law blank, or should the public's will be gathered directly or unconsciously to form the law? Issues of regulation and freedom will likely arise even in a democracy.

 

On the other hand, new scholarship is also related to new democracy, and it seems likely that the focus will be on ``academics that bridge the gap between technological efficiency and social structural power.''

 

Looking at it from another angle, it may mean creating a system that can combine human knowledge to counter the development of AI . One such idea could be to ``create an academic capital by combining the real and virtual'' in a different sense from the political and administrative capital.

 

Also, although it is a modest international organization, the headquarters of the United Nations University is located in Japan. If the United Nations University were to be further enhanced and become a place for forming academic fields that form the basis of policy, it would increase Japan's international value and could be of international significance. It will also be an opportunity to attract excellent human resources from around the world to Japan.

 

When it comes to new disciplines, new energy, biotechnology, and the fusion of such new sciences are attracting more attention. However, what is at the center of this second great industrial revolution is the ``mechanization of the brain.'' Behind this is the problem of the evolution of social science, which is lagging far behind the development of science and technology. It would be important to incorporate elements of synthesis and especially mechanics into the social sciences. This is because one of the major reasons for the large difference in the speed of development between the social sciences and the natural sciences seems to have been whether or not they adopted the idea of mechanics* . Mechanics has evolved from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, and has had a great influence on other disciplines (sometimes referred to as physics imperialism).

 

＊One of the major reasons for the large difference in the speed of development between social science and natural science seems to have been whether or not they adopted the idea of mechanics.

In fact, there are genres in the social sciences that seem to have adopted a mechanical way of thinking. That would be economics. In economics, concepts such as economic growth rate, interest rates, prices, investment, and savings have been viewed as numerical values and quantities, but these concepts could also be viewed as a force. Indeed, economics, especially classical economics, has played a role similar to that of physics imperialism within the social science genre. Although it may be inferior to this, Marxian economics also had a different dynamic behind it than classical economics. Statistics has come to occupy a large part in the world of physics, but this may also provide some suggestions for the social sciences, which must rely on statistics as their foundation. In a sense, just as physics is a biased worldview, economics is also a biased worldview. However, isn't globalism precisely the effort to realize that worldview in the real world? In this sense , it can be said that the 21st century in which we live has so far been an era of economic imperialism, following on from the 20th century when communism was a powerful force. I wonder if an era of ``Civilization Studies'' will emerge to overcome this problem .

 

all rights reseved to M Ariake

Civilizations and value 22 (not just cars that will be automated)

Deeply related to the age of AI and data, many things in human society will be able to be understood more accurately using numerical values. In other words, the number of genres that can be controlled will increase more than ever before.

 

This has been reflected particularly quickly in sectors of the economy. It can be said that it is a genre that has been digitized for a long time. Economics has continued to build a self-righteous worldview centered on the concept of "capital" in the 20th century, and even in the 21st century, but it is now beginning to show signs of change. Globalism has been thought to bring prosperity to the world through the effective use of resources by freeing the movement of capital, goods, and people. However, in reality, an unequal society has emerged in every corner of the world. Correcting disparities has not been possible in traditional democracy.

 

There are two levels to this problem. One of these is the question of whether the economic world should be defined at the global, civilizational, or national level. And it appears that civilization is beginning to show signs of becoming that way. This situation also seems to be related to the rise of China and India. China and India are nations and civilizations. Because of this situation, these two civilizations were included in the local civilization when classifying civilizations. This is because the factors that lead to integration seem to be familial and cultural rather than contractual.

 

Another possibility is that a system that improves on traditional democracy may be adopted by a nation. This improved democracy is not a society in which insurance premium rates and tax rates are determined through debates among members. This means that we will become a society in which insurance premium rates and tax rates are automatically adjusted based on figures such as national income, interest rates, and inflation rates. I believe we are on the verge of a society in which various issues faced by the people will be decided in a self-driving manner, rather than by complicated laws that the people cannot understand. It's not just cars that will be automated, but society itself as well. This direction is compatible with the development of smart cities, and also seems to be more compatible as a solution to global economic adjustment than democracy. In the end, we will arrive at a society that does not require politicians or civil servants to act as coordinators, and taxes may be significantly lower. However, since labor will gradually become unnecessary in the private sector as well, the nature of the workforce may be determined by the conflict between the private and public sectors.

 

*4 A form of reduced law that does not involve politics

It is said that the breakthrough of European civilization was due to the democratic system and the industrial revolution. In particular, since the history of Britain was the beginning of the first great industrial revolution, it is difficult to see clearly how the development of democracy and the industrial revolution were related, but for that reason, it would be difficult to see clearly how the development of democracy and the industrial revolution are related . I think this will be helpful when thinking about it. With the onset of the second great industrial revolution, the question is whether it is better for countries and governments to have more or less control power. In the state and government, the maintenance of vested interests has been deeply involved in control. For this reason, it may be possible that countries that consciously create an institutional space that eliminates politics and reduces the number of laws in the transition to new technologies may temporarily have an advantage. It can be said that this is a precious time when such a moment is needed in industrial policy.

 

All rights reseved to M Ariake

Civilizations and value 21 (direct and unconscious democracy)

While the culture and science of the new era have not yet become clear, the youthful forces of the new social order will probably build a new era of Japan . The first thing to be concerned about is what the culture of the new era will be and what the new science will be .

 

 the culture of the new era will likely be a kind of democratic culture that is different from that of the past . The 2021 US presidential election gave us a sense that SNS is already starting to have a major influence on old media. But it probably won't stop there. Rather than indirectly and consciously concentrating the will of the people*1 as is the case with current elections, it will become possible to condense the will of the people more directly and unconsciously*2. It's AI I think we are moving closer to a democracy based on new technologies such as ICT and big data . Democracy up until now has been a passive democracy, in which voters' dissatisfaction is avoided by simplifying issues and collating votes. In contrast, in future democracies, voters' requests will be collected to some extent through data, similar to convenience stores. I believe that a person or institution that can decipher such data in a more persuasive manner will be placed between the executive and the legislative bodies.

 

As the nature of democracy shifts from being indirect and conscious to being direct and unconscious, the nature and content of democratic culture will also change. Performances such as demonstrations and speeches, and theatrical activities such as the power struggles behind political performances (politicians are, in a sense, performers) gradually become less persuasive. Instead, insurance premium rates automatically change according to changes in numerical values (which can be considered a type of dynamic index) such as national income and interest rates*3. Or perhaps we will become a democracy without politics and with fewer laws .

 

*1 Indirect and conscious aggregation of public will, such as the current election

Indirect refers to the fact that the further a person moves away from regional characteristics, or in other words, the more one becomes a member of the Diet, the more fictitious that representation becomes. The representativeness of Diet members means that even though they are elected from a region, they are considered to be representative of the entire population. In order to fine-tune this, a system has been introduced that allows voters to choose political parties using a proportional representation system. On the other hand, conscious aggregation of public will means that the activities of city councilors, prefectural assembly members, etc. are related to accumulating votes for Diet members, but in the process, the public will is selected or assessed.  Nowadays, there are many independent voters, and the function may have deteriorated significantly in this respect, but it is probably deeply connected to the rise of populism in politics. Policies are announced in order to win the favor of independents, but they may not be the policies that are originally needed.

 

*2 More direct and unconscious gathering of public opinion

Directly means collecting data on the requests of citizens and residents and determining what is necessary, but there may be problems such as the privacy of citizens and residents being violated . Depending on the data collected, it may be possible to understand even unconscious needs. It may be possible to more efficiently and accurately calculate the demands of the people and residents than by assuming that members of the Diet represent all citizens. For most people, the disadvantages of privacy invasion might be probably less than the benefits.

 

Rather, the conflict between the rights of the state and powerful individuals will create a rivalry. If anything, there is a more important issue at hand with individualism than with democracy. However, the extent to which these individual human rights issues are guaranteed is determined by the provisions of the Constitution (for example, inner freedom is more guaranteed than freedom of action, freedom of expression is more guaranteed than property freedom, etc.) . Furthermore, as long as there is a right to review constitutional legislation, the rights of individuals can also be guaranteed. For example, if a state collects data on its citizens and uses it in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the state will be judged by its judicial power.

The question is what kind of constitutional system we will have in the age of AI and data, and what kind of capabilities the judicial and legislative powers will have within it.

 

*3 For example, insurance premium rates and tax burden rates change automatically according to changes in numerical values such as national income and interest rates.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake