Islamic Civilization 1 ( )

second exhibition room    Islamic civilization

  

1 The flow of Islamic civilization

 

 Mesopotamian civilization, Egyptian civilization, Hyksos, Hittites, Babylonia,　Assyria, The 4 kingdoms ages, Achaemenes Persia,  Hellenism dynasties, Parthia, Byzantine Empire and Sassanids Persia, Umayyad Caliphate, Abbaid Caliphate, Buyid dynasty , Seljuq dynasty, Fatimid Caliphate, Ayyubid Sultanate, Mamluk Sultanate  Ilkhanate, Timurid empire, Ottoman Empire, Safavid dynasty and Qajar dynasty

 

 There is an image that the flows of the big rivers are put together in Islamic civilization. Mesopotamian civilization and Egyptian civilization were before Islamic civilization, and these brought unification called Assyria, Achaemenes Persia, Parthia, and Sassanids Persia through some divisions. And the appearance of Islam came in the 7th century. Islam was the influence which surfaced in confrontation of Sassanids Persia and the Byzantine Empire.

 

The times when the sense of values was created are Hyksos, Hittites, The 4 kingdom ages, and Hellenism dynasties. Probably, Assyria, Achaemenes, and the Sassanids Persia were completed times. Civilization to which invited the appearance of Islamic civilization based on such times, and Islamic civilization was new value built on the Byzantine Empire and Sassanids Persia which got tired with long time. It was the 1st principle (principle of value)and based on the value , social structure power: -- the 3rd principle (principle of community development) was formed.

 

It seems that the essence of worth of Islamic civilization will be in brief and lucid monotheism. If existence of God is one, the faith will also be lucid, it will be clean like a desert , and money will not be spent on a religious rite. Moreover, the human being who serves does not have a difference to one God, either, and it is equal. Even if it is different ethnic groups, jizya (poll tax) is not imposed to a believer,

 

It was a view of Islam. Such jizuya was a necessary evil when forming a community, since Islam has begun from the religious group (umma) centering on Muhammad.

 

Although the structure did not change in the Umayyad Caliphate but the first principle of Arab was taken, in the Abbaid Caliphate, jizuya to a believer came to be denied also in races other than an Arab. And the people from Persia came to occupy the bureaucrat of the Abbaid Caliphate.

 

Although primal Islamic civilization was so simple, the form where it developed became more complicated than the India civilization and the China civilization. It is because Islamic civilization followed the development as cosmopolitan civilization to the civilization of India and China having been comparatively local civilization. Since the religious and hierarchical side is strong in the India civilization, that is, control by religion and class is strong, there are a tendency for history to be dragged by it, and a tendency which is not settled unlike the China civilization. China is not religious and hierarchical to it. There is also a tendency which may be settled rapidly and become excessive (an avant-garde empire like Qin or Sui was materialized).

 

It seems to it that the religious side of Islamic civilization would be strong, and the hierarchical side would be weak. Although the Islamic civilization area was divided and the settlement was not carried out after the Abbaid Caliphate , the time of expanding as a whole had come.

 

A world empire called the Abbaid Caliphate came to division soon, turned into Buyid dynasty, Seljuq dynast, Fatimid Caliphate, Ayyubid Sultanate, Mamluk Sultanate, Saman, Ghazni, Safavid dynasty, Delhi Salta nut, and the Mogul Empire, and expanded in the various directions. And social-structure power: Mamluk, a Turkish slave had surfaced as a bearer of the 3rd principle (principle of community development). moreover, Iqta system * which Buyid dynasty started -- largely -- social structure power [ of Islamic society ]: -- it became a model as the 3rd principle (principle of community development).

 

* Iqta system   the system of giving territory with the right of collecting tax  instead of a military burden , however  periodical and with moving from there.  

 

European Civilization 16 ( Representative issues in European civilization: Freedom and society2)

When we think about it this way, the driving force behind European civilization is

 

     1. Freedom, democracy, aristocracy

5. Military
6. Women

 

As a relatively weak driving force,

 

2. Duality (Spirituality and Secularity)
3. Cosmopolitan and Knowledge
4. Cosmopolitanism and Industrialism
5. Duality and Separability

 

However, this is only relative, and even today, the European civilization, including America and Russia, has considerable power.

 

How should Japan deal with this? Due to its postwar historical background, Japan is on the periphery of the European civilization sphere and is under the influence of the liberal and capitalist United States.

If we include the long culture from before the war, there may be values similar to those of the core of European civilization. In other words, there is a national character that cannot be solved simply by the logic of marketism or capitalism, and there is also envy for American values. We have previously considered the content of the driving force that drives European civilization, but as Europe unites into the EU, and as the United States and Russia exert their influence on the EU, it may be possible that new forms will be given to freedom, democracy, and aristocracy. Freedom is the impact on the economy, equal opportunity based on the individual, and human capitalism, in other words, how we think about the "concept of freedom" in the EU or local era. "Democracy" is about the separation of powers and what kind of parliament we should make. "Aristocracy" may be related to how we deal with mass social phenomena, or how to thicken the middle class. These elements may be unique to Japan, but there is a high possibility that they will be born in the "laboratory" of world history that is the EU. However, in modern European civilization, "duality (spirituality and secularity)" and "duality and separation" are weaker than in past European civilizations, so it is unclear whether it will produce the same level of creativity as before, but it does seem that the current European mentality is gradually moving toward spirituality.

 

Next, regarding the military nature that is a characteristic of this civilization, Europe, even though it has fought so many wars, is more cautious and realistic about security than Japan. The EU will have its own military, and the United States and Russia may eventually join in. In other words, it will be preparing for Chinese, Indian and Islamic civilizations. In that case, it seems that Indian civilization is the one with which European civilization is most likely to link up. There is the issue of how to relate to Islamic civilization, and the question of whether Islamic civilization, the original cosmopolitan and network civilization, and its successor, the European civilization, can cooperate with each other. Islamic civilization is probably a civilization that knows the ins and outs of European civilization. In comparison, Indian and Chinese civilizations can be said to be local civilizations. Although they are both local, the reason why they are more likely to link up with Indian civilization rather than Chinese civilization is because, although European and Indian civilizations have similarities, Indian civilization is not a network civilization like Islamic civilization, and is also important geopolitically. Indian civilization is a barrier against Islamic civilization, and a barrier that can also serve as a check on the distant Chinese civilization. Therefore, it is highly likely that Islamic civilization and Chinese civilization will be linked as opposing axes, and even in the European civilization sphere, Russia may cooperate with China due to security issues in the Far East or issues in Central Asia, and may try to make China expand southward, so it may not be possible to simply group them together in the European civilization sphere. As a reaction: fourth principle (principle of reaction and internal principle), Russia may become Sinicized and Islamicized. For the same reason, it is possible that America will become Latinized as a reaction: fourth principle (principle of reaction and internal principle). In the case of America, it will not lose its European civilization, but the Anglo-Saxon elements may decrease.

 

Japan has been influenced by America in the course of history, and although it has a culture close to European civilization, it did not meet any of the seven elements of European civilization, so it is possible that the driving force behind Japan's history was something else. From now on, the influence of Chinese civilization will grow worldwide, while European civilization will unite with the EU, the US, and Russia, although there will be a reaction. This is what will maintain the hegemony of European civilization, but it seems that Japan would be better hanging on to it in a modest way. The same development will probably be seen in Indian civilization. However, perhaps European civilization, which is a cosmopolitan and networked civilization, and Islamic civilization are connected behind the scenes. If we think about it like that, the premise of our previous considerations will change. If this is the case, then cosmopolitan civilization will dominate local civilizations such as Chinese and Indian civilizations. And the trial and error in the EU may become a "model experiment toward a world government."

 

As for Japan, it may be best to basically maintain cooperation with the United States, place importance on India together with the United States, take a fair and fair approach to China and Russia, and remain neutral toward the Islamic civilization. As the center of the European civilization and an experiment in a new era, we may be able to expect an era of new ideas and an evolution of ideas from European civilization, but we cannot expect the same kind of progress as in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Therefore, the question for Japan is whether to coexist with European and Indian civilizations, or with European and Islamic civilizations. Japan may feel more comfortable in Europe and India than in the monotheistic and cosmopolitan Europe and Islam. 

                                                                                             

 

Finally, let's think about how European civilization can influence world civilization. Perhaps the only characteristic of European civilization is that it created the idea of "freedom." And when we think about where it originated, it seems to have been in Greek philosophy. Individual philosophy, democracy, and Greek classics, Greek philosophy also influenced Asia during the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, where freedom did not blossom under despotism. Although the Roman Empire respected republicanism, it followed the path of despotism. Christianity also grew in this environment, but since Christianity first grew in what is now Turkey and Greece, it may have been Byzantium, or what is now Greek Orthodox, that was the strongest influence of original Christianity. European civilization (classical European civilization) was formed by Greek civilization, Christianity, and the invasion of Germanic tribes, and its characteristics are that it was created in a form different from despotism. First of all, it was not that individuals were free, but that society was free and separate, which was its characteristic. In this separation, the spiritual kingdom of Catholicism grew to the size of a national organization, and the importance of the spiritual was raised above other civilizations. The Renaissance was a reaction to this, but the Protestant Reformation was a religious aspect in which the importance of the spiritual in the individual shifted from the religious (divine) to the human, and this period overlapped with the infancy of the sovereign state. The idea of freedom emerged in this overlap (spiritual, social), reaching the natural rights of the individual, and the turning point for this was the various revolutions in England, but it was the American War of Independence that reached this point as an institution, not as an individual. It was liberation from Europe, and the reaction that influenced Europe was the French Revolution.

And after 1848, democracy and nationalism began to spread slowly throughout the world.

 

I mentioned "freedom" earlier as a characteristic of European civilization, and I think that the basis of this was "freedom of religion." This then became "freedom of worldview," and social issues arose as to how much of this could be guaranteed in communal living with others, but if we could not survive in the first place, we could not afford to talk about "freedom of worldview," so I think that social issues shifted their weight to this issue.

 

When we think about it in this way, we realize that the idea of "freedom" is a historical product of European civilization. What was originally freedom in the political sense evolved into freedom in the socio-economic sense during the transition from feudal society to capitalist society. This occurred at the same time as the establishment of sovereign states and the colonial rule of other regions by the central nations of European civilization.

 

In feudal society, there was relatively little idea of equality, but as the bourgeoisie took the lead and went through the civil revolution and the industrial revolution, the idea of equality in a social sense grew, which gave rise to socialism.This increase in equality was achieved through the masses' participation in the economy and war.

 

What kind of impact will these characteristics of European civilization have on world civilization? The core values of world civilization are already European, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become clear that the idea of "freedom" is a more fundamental "value." On the other hand, the value of "equality" remains in the form of Chinese civilization and in European social democracy, but China's current situation cannot necessarily be called socialist, and the EU's situation also seems to be a reaction to liberalism and globalization of the economy.

 

The values that originated in European civilization - "liberty" and "social equality" - are likely to be influenced by the reactions of Islamic, Indian, and Chinese civilizations. However, it seems that we are entering a period in which the assumptions upon which the concepts of "liberty" and "social equality" have been established in European countries will be reexamined, and questions will be asked as to how they can be established in the context of a global civilization .

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 15 ( Representative issues in European civilization: Freedom and society1 )

5. Representative issues in European civilization: Freedom and society

 

It may be said that there are four types of European civilization. One is the EU countries,This is the origin. America, Britain, Oceania, Russia, South America. Until recently, the European civilization was extremely powerful, and its influence extended to other civilizations. There are seven characteristics of European civilization: 1. Freedom, democracy, aristocracy, 2. Spirituality and secularity (dualism), 3. Cosmopolitanism and knowledge, 4. Cosmopolitanism and industrialism, 5. Military, 6. Duality and separation, 7. Women's power. How should Japan deal with this European civilization? Also, what are the problems facing modern European civilization, and what contributions can it make to world civilization in the future?

 

However, European civilization is still powerful, and there are various elements, and there are internal conflicts, but in the long term, if the Chinese and Indian civilizations become relatively powerful, the tendency to become one will increase. Conversely, North and South America may gradually lose the elements of European civilization. There is a possibility that they will follow the same process as the Seleucid Empire, a Greek state. In the case of North America, it will first become South Americanized (there may be an aspect of North America returning to its origins as a reaction to this - perhaps the Trump administration), but it will not leave the framework of the Christian civilization. However, America has a different environment from Europe, so it will be influenced by it. As a new continent, I think Oceania also has such an aspect.

 

Russia, on the other hand, will also be influenced by Central Asia and China. In this case, it will also be removed from the framework of the Christian civilization. As long as China aims to be a maritime nation, Russia, Central Asia and China can cooperate, but in the meantime, mutual dependence will increase, and Russia will become more dependent on China, which will remove it from the Christian civilization and eventually be psychologically eroded (which will be the beginning of China's influence expansion). China's strategy to the south seems to have meaning in the north as well. However, in response to such movements, Russia will pursue the framework of the former Soviet Union (Eurasia Concept) so as not to be eroded by Chinese civilization, but it is likely that it will eventually realize that its honeymoon with China is only buying time, and will steer toward the EU (and Indian civilization).

 

It depends on how the Ukraine issue and the Xinjiang issue are resolved, but the big flow is what the residents there want. Ukraine faces the EU (European civilization), and Xinjiang faces Islamic civilization, so if they can no longer be suppressed by force, they will have no choice but to follow the natural flow through conditioning. That way, Russia can protect its territory and culture, and it would be more beneficial for China to peacefully hand over Xinjiang to Islamic civilization. This is because, as we discussed in the section on Islamic civilization, Islamic civilization is likely to be linked to Chinese civilization. That is, unless European civilization and Islamic civilization are connected behind the scenes.

 

Over-expanded nations (America, Russia, China) may be eroded by the force of the fourth principle (reaction), as was the case with Britain after the war, and eventually their centripetal force may gather around the EU, the center of European civilization that was the mother of these nations. It seems that the groundwork for this is now being laid in Europe.

 

Now, are the elements that made Europe the mother of civilization (the mother of North and South America, Oceania, and Russia) still present in the present day?

 

1) Freedom, democracy, and aristocracy - these are the original values and are thought to remain to this day. It is a civilization that continues to have these cultures in a mature form.

 

2. Spirituality and secularity (dualism) - this unfortunately seems to have weakened. The sense of adventure in the intellectual world has also decreased (decline of spirituality). Because of the long period of material abundance, the energy for pursuit of it may not be as strong as in Asia (decline of secularity). Therefore, the driving force for the development of this civilization is inevitably weaker than that of China and India.

 

3. Cosmopolitanism and knowledge: Today's Europe is moving from cosmopolitanism to integration. Loose cosmopolitanism and division have given birth to competition and evolution, but modern European civilization seems to be moving from looseness to strong unity. This comes from the lessons learned from the loss of so much in the world war, but this may not be the image of the former European civilization that always gave birth to innovation. It may also be said that a situation without division is less beneficial for cosmopolitan merchants and capital who profit from differences.

 

4. Regarding being cosmopolitan and industrialist, European civilization is no longer the only capitalist civilization based on industrialism.

 

5. Regarding being militaristic, it seems that the values of European civilization have not changed much even after the end of the world wars.

 

6. Regarding dualism and separation, the competition of values that was the driving force of evolution, arising from the conflict between spirituality and secularity, seems to have become a stable competition based on "unity (monism) and separation" at present. This may be a competition of values with historical significance, just as sovereign states gradually emerged from alliances of feudal lords. Separability also seems to be inclined to be rejected due to the lessons of the world wars. At the same time, we are entering an era in which the uniqueness of various regions is emphasized rather than that of countries, but a certain degree of universality is also required, so the theme of unity and separation may be said to be more of an institutional rather than a value-based theme compared to the themes of Protestantism and Catholicism, absolute monarchy and civil revolution, and capitalism and socialism. In fact, the path from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from absolute monarchy to the civil revolution, was also the path from feudal territorial rule to sovereign states, and values and institutional theory were inseparably linked, but in the current situation where no new value theories have emerged regarding the EU, it may be thought that the EU is like France or Britain at a time of transition (transition to sovereign states), but the time has passed when the EU's value opponents were America or Russia, and they are now other civilizations. There may also be a view that one should try to forge one's own civilization through tension with other civilizations.

 

7. The power of women may also be a new power that has emerged in the human rights ideas of European civilization. There may be good and bad things about women, but it seems that there are many women who have made great achievements in European civilization.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 1４ ( Characteristics of Modern European Civilization ３ )

6. Duality (spiritual and secular), center and division

Dualism (spirituality and secularity) was a characteristic of European civilization. This phenomenon can be seen in other civilizations as well. In Islamic civilization, caliphs and sultans existed side by side, and in Japan, In the past, the emperor and the shogun stood side by side. They represented spirituality and secularity, respectively, but in European civilization, the Pope had physical power backed by monasteries. Yes, there were. In the Middle Ages, various religious orders of knights appeared and even exercised military power.

 

Of course, the background to this was the decentralized medieval society, and the Pope, a spiritual authority, reigned over it, but this phenomenon (a religious organization at the top of power) did not occur in religious Indian civilization, and the situation did not reach this level in Islamic civilization. The caliphs were protected by the sultans. European civilization was given its worldview by the church organization that controlled the secular world, and it can be said that it was a civilization that opened up a new era by breaking through this. This took the form of various worldviews (from humanism to religious views) proposed by individuals, and scientific thought was one of them. Rational judgments by individuals also appeared in religion, and there were constant conflicts against irrational societies such as Catholicism and Protestantism, feudalism and absolutism, absolutism and democracy, capitalism and socialism, and in times of peace there were competitions and frequent wars. These things were first discussed in the spiritual world of thought, which was adopted and developed, but it can be said that in European civilization, in addition to the expansion of the geographical world, the expansion of the intellectual world was a major characteristic.

 

I think that the problem of center and separation is also behind this phenomenon. As was the case in Islamic civilization, if the spiritual or secular authority of the center is too strong, the economy and culture will be blocked, whereas European civilization was somewhat pluralistic, with Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Russia. The aforementioned constant dualistic conflict unfolded within such a pluralistic culture, and the diversity of its products was remarkable. The weak center (perhaps it was Britain, which tried to be a balancer) developed networks, and in terms of capital, the cosmopolitan world was beginning to emerge. After the complete shift of hegemony to America after World War II, colonialism, which was a cultural element of Europe, came to an end, and the center shifted to America and the Soviet Union. However, unlike the first half of European civilization (the period when European countries were at the center, which was like Greek civilization), this period seems to have been extremely strong in the power of the center and weak in the element of separation. Also, since the axis of conflict was simple in the second half of European civilization (the era of America and Russia), it seems that we did not see a diverse development unlike the first half of European civilization. (It may be said to be Roman civilization.)

 

7. The Power of Women

It may be said that the influence of women's power as a driving force in history is an unknown problem. There are regional differences in European civilization. However, one thing that is relatively common is that many women have appeared in European civilization throughout history. I think that Christianity has an influence, but the development of human rights ideas is also thought to be behind it. Europe has already had female prime ministers, and British Prime Minister Thatcher has become a great prime minister, and German Chancellor Merkel may also go down in history as the prime minister who wiped out Hitler's bad image and made Germany the most important country in Europe. Perhaps in the near future, the time will come when a woman will become president in the United States and Russia, and if that happens in Russia, something amazing may happen (like Catherine the Great, who confirmed Russia's westernization course, just like Peter the Great).

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 13 ( Characteristics of Modern European Civilization 2 )

4. Industrialism and Cosmopolitanism

 

It is said that the breakthrough of European civilization was due to the Industrial Revolution and the invention of democracy. The Industrial Revolution enhanced the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving living standards), which changed the concept of military power up to that point. This military power eventually gave birth to nuclear weapons, which made destructive all-out wars ineffective. In the context of Western civilization, it could be said that the emergence of these weapons negated the utility of war. (Other civilizations, operating with very different motives, may have taken different approaches to nuclear weapons.) This is because weapons are also an extension of politics. For this reason, economy emerged as the main element of efficiency. However, being economic is not the only overall power of a civilization, as can be seen from the tenacity of Britain. Perhaps America will not lose its hegemony so easily, and will continue to survive tenaciously. This is because America knows that after the war, Britain had a great influence on the American media and political world and survived. America may recover, but it is likely to decline relatively. Civilization is basically formed by human values and spiritual and material vitality. However, America is a country that has absorbed people from various parts of the world, so the conditions may be different. In any case, if America were to decline, it would be likely that America would hang on to the next hegemonic country, which would be China or India. And considering its ties with Britain, the fact that it can speak English, and its geographical location, India is a very likely candidate. Behind China's flashy performance, America has been quietly and submissively playing second fiddle to Germany, and the two countries are in a similar position. India is also a country that can have universal ideals like America (see Indian Civilization in the second exhibition room). Perhaps India may be already playing the same role in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as Japan did in the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

 

I've digressed a little, but another factor that led to the rapid development of European civilization was democracy, but why was it such a rapid development? Freedom exists only with individualism and human rights, and democracy was established as a system to guarantee this. It encouraged people to voluntarily participate in politics, and became an active form of politics that sought to realize the free will of each citizen. It was completely different from the social structures that had been forced into existence by rulers throughout history, and this dramatically increased the power of the social structural force: the third principle (the principle of community development).

 

The strengthening of efficiency through the Industrial Revolution: the power of the second principle (principle of improving living standards), and the strengthening of social structure through democracy: the power of the third principle (principle of developing communities) led to the rise of the British Empire and France. Democracy has a purifying power, so the social structure force of Britain and France also increased. So why were Britain and France overtaken by the German Empire and the United States? It is not hard to understand, as the United States is also the birthplace of democracy. But Germany was not a democratic country.

 

One of the drawbacks of democracy is that it is difficult to quickly adjust vested interests; it takes time. This is often accompanied by confusion due to information disruption and political strife, but Germany has successfully increased efficiency by focusing on bureaucracy. However, in Germany's case, even if they achieved early success, they had problems such as clinging to success stories and not being able to exert their purification power. This is a problem that is common to Japan, but it may be said that the efficiency and social structural power based on democracy as a collection of people with free ideas was not necessarily something that could be said about Germany, or Japan.

 

One of the factors that shook Europe may be the cosmopolitan capitalism that was built on industrialism. The Industrial Revolution produced new technologies and new products one after another, which created new demand and created an environment for cosmopolitans to invest and make profits. This expanded European civilization itself and led to the colonization of other civilizations, but the efficiency and social structural power within the European civilization sphere became uncontrollable. Against this backdrop, domestic circumstances in each country, class struggle and colonialism (social imperialism) in England and rigid militarism in Germany, combined to eventually lead to two world wars. There was also a problem that is relevant to the present day, in that the adjustment between the real economy and finance was not necessarily ideal.

 

5. Military

 

The reason why European civilization is so military is probably because it experienced repeated invasions by other tribes. In the past, most of the cities in European civilization were surrounded by walls, and in many cases, cities were born from these walls. Another factor was the establishment of cities due to the increase in agricultural productivity in the Middle Ages. However, it seems certain that Europe was a weak place for a long time, given the history of the movement of nomadic tribes (it was spared because it was in the far west), and European civilization was cornered by the advance of the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century (their response was to conquer the Atlantic Ocean), but the improvement of weapons and transportation capabilities (also efficiency) that came with the Industrial Revolution in England put an end to this situation. Also, in the process of getting to that point, weapons had been improved to a certain extent, which seems to have led to Russia's expansion in Eurasia.

 

European civilization also challenged the once advanced civilization, Islamic civilization. This was attributed to the invasion of the Byzantine Empire by the Seljuk Turks, but it was also due to the desire of Italian cities connected with the Pope to expand their Mediterranean trade sphere, and although it was an aggressive military action, the multiple Crusades may have been an aspect of Europe's vitality and military inclinations overlapping. For a long time, Europe had built up a military culture (aristocracy) from a defensive perspective, but when the position of the Europeans was reversed with Islamic civilization and Byzantium, they seized the opportunity to go on the offensive, which may also be considered a military aspect.

 

After the collapse of medieval society, European civilization was constantly renewing its axis of conflict, which was compounded by military elements, leading to repeated wars. This created competition within European civilization, leading to evolution in all fields from the 17th to the 20th centuries, but ultimately this military worldview led to the bankruptcy of European civilization itself. However, this was not the end of the military worldview, which continued even after World War II in the form of the Cold War, but perhaps because they had witnessed the collapse of European civilization, the United States and Russia, who were also constituents of European civilization, were able to end the Cold War by subordinated the military to politics.

 

In European civilization, great opposing axes such as Catholicism and Protestantism, absolute monarchy and the bourgeoisie, capitalism and socialism appeared as if they were evolving, and this in itself was also an evolution of civilization itself, but it may have been that military tendencies were added to this and the benefits were lost through war . Also, even if the idea of socialism was ideally the right direction, it may have been problematic in that the means to realize it had not yet been clarified or created. The fact that the Russian experiment became a model (and influenced China as well) may have seemed to suggest that socialism was disqualified at the start.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

 

European Civilization 12 ( Characteristics of Modern European Civilization 1 )

4. Modern European Civilization

 

It can be said that modern European civilization has overcome classical European civilization. The essence of European civilization is democratic (and, on the other hand, aristocratic) and dualistic (spirituality and secularity).

Scientific thought and sovereign nations emerged to overcome the medieval world, and with their power Protestantism rose to power, leading to a long war. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 put an end to the religious wars for the time being, and in England the prototype of the civil revolution arose (Puritan Revolution 1642, Glorious Revolution 1688), which spread to America and France as the theory of the social contract, and in England the Industrial Revolution occurred as freedom, capital and colonies (resources and markets) were combined. The class struggle that occurred here gave rise to socialism, and its extreme form, Marxism, spread to relatively backward Russia and developing countries outside Europe. Furthermore, because Europe was networked and cosmopolitan on the foundation of industrialism, the impetus for its civilization became enormous.

 

 

1. What will happen to freedom, democracy, and aristocracy? In Europe, freedom will increase within the EU. The movement of capital, people, and information will increase, and Europe may become like America, with each country becoming more like a state, but since Europe has a much higher level of localism than America, the tendency toward regionalism will also strengthen at the same time. Democracy develops closely with regionalism, and such regionalism and democracy may appear in North America and Russia, although to different degrees. Freedom, democracy, and aristocracy are rooted in Germanic temperament, so they may be slightly different in Latin and Slavic countries. Also, in America and Russia, there are fewer aristocratic elements and they may feel more populist, but the way they are manipulated may tend to be through money or force. I think freedom, democracy, and aristocracy will remain in a balanced form in the center of Europe, but on the right wing will be the North American region, which advocates freedom, and on the left wing will be the Russian region, which advocates equality. It seems likely that Europe, North America and Russia will see the power of social structure - the third principle (principle of community development) - come into play with federations and regionalism.

 

 

2 Duality, spiritual and secular, was a prominent feature of European civilization. European civilization was once influenced by the social structural forces of the Middle Ages (feudalism), but spirituality ruled over the secular world. Therefore, to break the medieval worldview, it was necessary to break Islamic civilization, that is, to conquer not only geographically but also intellectually. European civilization created various worldviews and academic fields, but in modern times, there is no longer any rebellion against spirituality, and its creativity has declined from historical fulfillment, and as a result of repeated wars, it has lost many excellent human resources, and the aspect that had strengthened and grown due to historical conflicts has been lost, and it is moving toward integration. In this respect, it seems that modern European civilization cannot expect to make the same leap as the European civilization of the past, but for that reason it will strengthen its vigilance against other civilizations and move in the direction of protecting the foundations of Western civilization by cooperating with North America and Russia.

 

3. Cosmopolitans and Information

European civilization is the place that gave birth to the concept of the nation-state, but it has also become the place that has tried to give birth to concepts that transcend it. In other words, the EU is an attempt to unite different ethnic groups , but I am not sure whether what is trying to achieve this is cosmopolitan. The EU is, in a sense, a barrier against other civilizations, and also provides European industries with the movement of capital and labor and a large market.

 

As I also considered in the section on Islamic civilization, international merchants do not want huge power in the center, but rather make profits by exploiting the differences between separate nations. I think that the period when European civilization was at its strongest was when Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States were all growing. European civilization collapsed due to internal conflicts because the competition caused by the division reached a saturation point, and Britain and Germany were unable to adjust their interests as Britain and France had done, leading to two world wars, with the United States and Russia (especially the United States) reaping the benefits. However, in the course of events that led to this, could the cosmopolitan society, which was based on the industrial society that made Europe the strongest, and which was connected by capital and information, have prevented this? I think the problem with European civilization was that it had reached a point where the status quo of the British Empire could no longer be accepted. The great European powers had become powerful during Pax Britannica, but they were trying to break through that framework. Cosmopolitans had no choice but to ride this wave. Capital and human resources moved to America, and America liberated the European colonies in Asia and Africa. And the great power of Europe was rejected. Domesticism in America (Monroe Doctrine) was also rejected. Domesticism in Russia was partially rejected with the establishment of the Soviet Union (recently, Russia seems to be trying to return to domesticism, but this may be the other side of weakening). In this situation, Europe, centered on Germany and France, which were enemies, advocated the revival of European civilization with the EC and EU, but the hegemony of the British Empire continued to some extent under the umbrella of America, and although it has weakened recently, it is finally now that it seems that a true Europe is about to be established (although the situation has changed a little with the UK's withdrawal from the EU), but the dynamism of European civilization in the past was achieved through separation and competition, and it is questionable whether such a thing exists in modern European civilization.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariak

European Civilization 11 ( Characteristics of European Civilization 2 )

4. The reason why European civilization became the most powerful civilization was due to the combined forces of the accumulation of scientific knowledge in many fields, its industrialization, and the formation of markets (exports). On top of this industrial capital, there was a cosmopolitan, networked world of capital.

 

5. Excessively militaristic. Having experienced repeated invasions by foreign tribes, they are sensitive about security. This has been the situation since they were a small community, but on the other hand, they have also developed the idea of arbitration and trials rather than military. The formation of modern nation states is a result of this (for example, the development of the Bourbon dynasty increased its power as an arbitrator), but it seems that the idea of balance of power also had this aspect.

 

 

6. The secular world was separated and the central universality was gradual, but in the case of European civilization, the duality of the spiritual and the secular has led to complex historical phenomena. After the end of the Middle Ages, Catholicism and Protestantism fought, which was accompanied by wars and diplomacy for the balance of power in the secular world, resulting in long-term religious wars and turmoil. Religion (the Puritan Revolution) gave rise to democracy and nationalism, and the old powers (the nobility and clergy) fought against the bourgeoisie and bourgeois classes, which was also accompanied by competition for the balance of power in the secular world, resulting in long-term conflicts and wars related to the civil revolution. The Industrial Revolution, which was born from the freedom created by the civil revolution, gave rise to the bourgeoisie and working class, which gave rise to class struggle, and the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving living standards) gave rise to imperialism (capital accumulation, military, and the development of transportation and communication technology), thus creating the continuous evolution of European civilization.

 

 

Islamic civilization has a similar structure to European civilization, with the separation of the secular, a loose center, and Sunni and Shiite sects*. Also, European and Islamic civilizations have similar appearances in the sense of being cosmopolitan and networked societies, but the speed of subsequent development was faster in European civilization. Why is this? It may have been a difference in degree, although they are similar. There was a period in the Middle Ages when spiritual power dominated over secular power in European civilization. This power also contributed to the expansion of agricultural productivity. It was characterized by being both secular and spiritual power, and therefore the worldview it created was wide-reaching and robust, but the reaction to it was also wide-reaching and powerful. The chain reaction between the old and new powers, which often changed their meaning, was also powerful. Other elements of European civilization were drawn into this conflict. For example, Germanic democracy, aristocracy, and freedom. This civilization's peasant elements, military elements, sense of balance of power, cosmopolitan elements, and the external forces of Islamic civilization were all combined in various ways to drive a variety of phenomena.

 

7. The status of women was remarkably high compared to other civilizations. This phenomenon was probably linked to the emergence of the idea of human rights. Although there were regional differences, it was a notable feature compared to other civilizations, including the fact that empresses appeared quite frequently and that there were quite a few female historical figures.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

 

European Civilization 10 ( Characteristics of European Civilization 1 )

3. Characteristics of European Civilization

 

European civilization seems to be more similar to Islamic civilization than Chinese or Indian civilization. It is cosmopolitan and networked. The original form of European civilization was created in the 9th century during the time of Charlemagne, when the currents originating from Greece and Rome, the currents originating from Eastern Christianity, and the currents originating from Germanic culture merged. After that, it formed a military culture and a hierarchical culture (similar to India in this respect) while being attacked by foreign tribes many times, and while being subjected to external forces from Islam, it absorbed the seeds of science and a cosmopolitan and networked culture from Islam, and eventually overtook Islamic civilization. At the end of the line, there was a scientific and commercial nation, and it reached the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution was an opportunity to give the power of efficiency: the second principle (principle of improving living standards) more power than the power of social structure: the third principle (principle of community development).

 

To name a few features:

 

1. Germanic elements (assembly and aristocracy) were thought to be strong. Compared to Islamic and other civilizations, Europe had less of a monarchical and autocratic element. Although bilateralism also had elements of Roman law, compared to the later development of Byzantium, the European civilization created a social structure that was the premise of the agricultural revolution (for example, three-field agriculture: a structure in which each member of a village had a role), and repeated invasions by foreign tribes created contracts for feudal lords to obtain security. In addition, although democracy and aristocracy later became a conflict, the aspect of personal rule by the aristocracy remained strong , so it cannot be said to be simply contractual. The way village members were organized is similar to the Indian caste system in some ways, but while Indian civilization ranked people by purity, Europe does not seem to have ranked members of the same class. This kind of ranking can be seen in Japan, although on a smaller scale, with the four classes of samurai, farmers, artisans, and merchants. This is thought to be for the purpose of dividing and governing, but in medieval Europe, people were divided into those who fought, those who prayed, and those who cultivated. The detailed hierarchy of those who fought and those who prayed was complicated (aristocratic elements), but no detailed hierarchy was created for those who cultivated. This made it easy for society to become fluid, and as agricultural productivity improved, markets (the birth of merchants) were established, trade arose, cities were established, and freedom rights in cities were asserted. The loose hierarchy and democratic nature of the peasant class led to the establishment of markets and cities , but one of the characteristics of European civilization may be that freedom was asserted through groups and networks. Islamic civilization is also powerful in terms of less hierarchy and equality, but Islamic civilization started from commerce rather than agriculture, and its approach to freedom may have been different from that of Europe. The important concept for European civilization is freedom, and this eventually led those who cultivated through productivity over those who fought and prayed  .

 

2. The dualism of spirituality and secularity is related to the Christian aspect. Although Christian civilization came to be through Greek and Roman civilization, the original flow of Christian orthodoxy seems to have been in the Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Christianity first gained its foundation in Greece, spread to the Roman Empire, and became the state religion, and Constantinople can be said to have been its center. However, Christianity gained great authority as an independent spiritual force when Rome, which had become a frontier in the 4th century, began to assert its authority in a place other than secular power. The Church remained a force because it had administrative power over the people's lives against the Germanic invasion, and the Germanic people used the Church. Monasteries were also the main driving force for land reclamation, and the monastic movement defeated secular power in the investiture movement, and an era came when the Pope was above secular power (although there were times when it was a decentralized era), but the major characteristic of European civilization was that spirituality came to the top, and this constituted the world view. You might think that these characteristics are similar to the phenomenon that gave rise to the Brahmins in the Gupta Dynasty in India and the Sufis in the Abbasid Dynasty in Islamic civilization*, but in European civilization, this phenomenon led to the Enlightenment through the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, and led not only to the exploration of the spatial world but also to the exploration of various spiritual intellectual worlds. It was this scientific intellect that became the driving force behind the rapid advancement of European civilization.

 

* Perhaps behind these phenomena lies a desire for freedom from rigid systems.

 

3. Cosmopolitan and networked. These aspects were probably learned from Islamic civilization (Mamluks, Umayyads)*, and there were forces that expanded commerce by taking advantage of the situation of weakened religious authority and separated secular power. At first, agricultural production expanded and cities emerged in medieval Europe, constrained by the external force of Islamic civilization: the fifth principle (environmental principle and external principle), but gradually a cosmopolitan and networked society was established in medieval Europe on top of these. These cosmopolitan forces formed hegemonic structures (Fugger, Medec, Rothschild) in each era in Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and England.

 

*When talking about what was transferred from Islamic civilization to European civilization, academic knowledge is often mentioned, but how was trade know-how transferred? It was probably accumulated through Venice and other places during the course of several Crusades (including Byzantium).

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 9 ( recall the five principles )

Let us now recall the five principles.

(1) First Principle (Principle of Value): Value is a function of time, (2) Second Principle (Principle of Improving Living Standards): Efficiency is a function of value, (3) Third Principle (Principle of Community) (4) Fourth Principle (Principle of Reaction and Internal Principle): Reaction forces are a function of values; (5) Fifth Principle (Principle of Environment and External Principle): Principle: The first four forces are influenced by the environment or external forces.

 

What made European civilization different from other civilizations? I think it can be said that Europe was unique from other civilizations in that the spiritual and the secular were dualized, that is, in terms of values. Medieval European civilization is similar to Indian civilization in that the clergy influenced administration. It is also similar in that ancient cultures were restored in new forms. Although they are different eras, it could be said that the reason the two developed differently was because of different religious values. European civilization attacked Islamic civilization, and Islamic civilization attacked Indian civilization. What made European civilization aggressive was the growth of cities, commerce, and trade, and this secular way of looking at things is probably closely related to the birth of scientific thought in the form of skepticism of the authority of spirituality. After the Renaissance, European values went through Da Vinci and Galileo to Newton, and they were not limited to conquering the geographical world, but also conquered various genres of the intellectual world. They did so with the methodology of the scientific spirit. One part of that intellectual world is various technologies, and it can be said that it is the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving life). Another intellectual world is the political world, where democracy can be described as a form of social structural power: the power of the third principle (the principle of community development).

In other words, the value of European civilization was something that was opposed to historical religion and the conquest of the entire intellectual world (not just spatial) through the methodology of the scientific spirit.

 

And so the idea of reaction force: the fourth principle (principle of reaction and internal principle) emerges. Why did European civilization, which could be said to be the epitome of the scientific spirit, collapse in an irrational way? The reaction force is the idea that when a force is applied, a force that tries to return to the original state also occurs, but where did European civilization try to return to? This can be seen from what the British Empire lost. Religion and aristocracy, which had long been the mainstay of European civilization's values, had finished their roles, and it is thought that some kind of force was at work to return to those positions. The colonies held by imperialist nations, mainly Britain, were a burden to the industrial world, but they were meaningful as investment destinations and in providing social status, and the vanguard that went into the colonies were often missionaries and children of clergy. The background to this was the "ethical conviction" mentioned earlier.

 

America rejected colonies and restructured the world in a way that favored the industrial sector. The Soviet Union was the same in this respect, but the Soviet Union had already rejected the nobility and religion after the Russian Revolution. America did not originally have an aristocracy (although there was racism), and religion was relatively free. World War I and World War II were wars between the rising military state of Germany (whose officers were also aristocrats: Junkers) and the declining British vested interest class (also aristocrats: gentlemen), and it could be said that both Britain and Germany lost and America (the financial class, not the aristocracy) won. Up until this point, it does not seem that any decisive external forces had been exerted on European civilization . European civilization (Europe, America, Russia) of this era had overwhelming power. And it was maintained during the Cold War, but in the process of diversification, European civilization shrank relatively. The collapse of the Soviet Union could also be said to be one of the shrinking of European civilization. The phenomenon of American unipolar dominance is also in a difficult situation after the Lehman Shock.

 

all rights reserved to M Ariake

European Civilization 8 ( Technology came to define politics and society )

The Industrial Revolution was started by people (human capital) who had low social status but were carriers of a new religion (or a scientific spirit) and found themselves in a state of freedom, so to speak, when their path to promotion was blocked within the existing social structure.* This was established by the systematic accumulation of success stories that happened to occur. There are many meanings to "chance," and it probably occurred in 18th century England because of improved agricultural productivity, things people wanted to make, resources, markets, and cheap capital.

 

*The Industrial Revolution occurred in 18th century Britain, where people were free to do their activities in areas other than those of vested interests. The entry of many people with new religions and new values into this world, and the many problems that needed to be solved at that time, are thought to have been the causes of the British Industrial Revolution. However, it may be important to note that many of the people who achieved this were Scottish. The trigger was neither London nor Oxford Bridge* (Industrial Revolution: Ashton).

 

 

And when cosmopolitan elements (financial elements) were added to the rooftop of this industrial capital, European civilization was born, a civilization that became more universal and more influential than Islamic civilization.

 

The Industrial Revolution ended the era in which history was driven by innovation, the "power of social structure: the power of the third principle (the principle of community development)," and placed the "power of efficiency: the power of the second principle (the principle of improving living standards)" at the forefront of historical change. This is best illustrated by the fact that the destructive power of nuclear weapons, a symbol of power, almost ended world wars, and that information technology and transportation technology have powerfully deepened global interdependence, turning the world into one playhouse (the Globe Theatre*).

*The Globe Theatre: The name of the theatre in London where Shakespeare presided.

 

3. Simple sketch based on 5 principles

 Before the Industrial Revolution, the main force that triggered historical change was the force of social structure: the third principle (principle of community development). Therefore, military and politics drove history. The reason why Islamic civilization and the Mongol Empire grew so rapidly was probably because of their fighting capabilities and excellent governing organizations. However, the Industrial Revolution drastically changed that. Of course, the expansion of agricultural productivity and the progress of urbanization in medieval Europe also had some influence on efficiency (the 12th century Renaissance in Europe). In addition, in the case of European civilization (11th to 12th centuries), the cultivation of monasteries expanded farmland, and the monastic movement and the investiture movement increased the authority of the Pope, leading to a coexistence of the spiritual and the secular in a form in which the spiritual was prominent, or rather, in which the spiritual was dominant (also in the 11th to 12th centuries). However, the Crusades did not overwhelm Islamic civilization, and even the discovery of new sea routes by Spain and Portugal did not immediately overwhelm Islamic civilization. During the time of Charles V (16th century), the Ottoman Turks besieged Vienna (1529), and at that time Islamic civilization was at its peak with the Ottoman Turks, the Safavid Dynasty, and the Mughal Empire. After that, the Netherlands and England advanced into the world, but they cleverly used local power, and this was the result of organizations such as the East India Company, and the power of social structure: the third principle (principle of community development).

 

This completely changed with the mechanization of weapons and transportation and the formation of an industrial society capable of mass-producing them, the final symbolic result of which was the emergence of nuclear weapons. Technology came to define politics and society. However, this technology was also surpassed by other technologies, and in the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, both countries fell into a tailspin due to their reliance on nuclear weapons. The United States regained technological superiority by utilizing the information industry that had grown during military development. The technology created by the economy and industry is the most important thing, and the power of efficiency: the second principle (the principle of improving living standards) remains the most important power, but the ability to quickly and appropriately discover and disseminate technology that is appropriate for the times has become desirable for civilizations and nations.

 

All rights reserved to M Ariake

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