Thread:4th of Augustball/@comment-38190122-20200311185625/@comment-34423308-20200411183817

FLAH!2.0 wrote: WestKoreaBestKorea wrote: is that so? time and time again, kings, absolute monarchs, dictators more oft than not fell towards self-gain. again, you stated that both Democracy and Totalitarianism are faulted by the nature of man. why would a single man, with a good majority of the power in the state, work for the betterment of the people if he could just as easily indulge in his own pleasures, whisking away political enemies, and silencing those he disagrees with? Joseon, North Korea, early PR China, the USSR, all eventually devolved into poor, impoverished nations in which most of the gains were aimed towards their respective supreme leaders.

and even if such isn't entirely the case, there's also always the vulnerability of incompetence and disconnect from reality - here, I lay down Tsarist Russia and the 1st Republic of Korea as case examples. And time and time again democratic leaders were after self-gain, expect their societies actually encouraged going after self-gain.

There are many people who honestly want to work for betterment of their people and country as well as what they stand for. It is one of the main differences between totalitarian and democratic societies that totalitarian societies encourage and promote self-sacrafice and working for the greater good while democratic societies encourage centering your activity around yourself and your individual desires and interests while rebelling againt collective good.

Joseon was a prosperous state. DPRK is internationally isolated and one of its main goals it so be fully self-sufficient, something that will naturally lead to a period where they will be poor compared to the rest of the world but what they view as a necessary sacrifice for their goal, which is independence and a stable prosperity in the future. Early PR China indeed wasn't the greatest example of prosperity but look what they have turned into today. USSR was quite wealthy during late Stalin's government and later governments febore Gorbachev.

How was Tsarist Russia disconnected from reality? And democracy is vunerable to disconnection from reality as well, in fact I would say far more than totalitarian states, something we can see around the world even today. for Joseon - all dynasties start off as prosperous - perhaps by sheer luck or the newfound support by the masses, Joseon and many other Asian dynasties started off quite prosperous but eventually decline into stagnation. Joseon eventually shuttered all doors to outside influence and thus could not keep up with the changing world. it is precisely why Joseon was left weak and defenseless before falling to the far worse and more horrific occupation by the Imperialist Japanese.

as for the DPRK - it was only "succesful" from the start because it ironically heavily relied on Soviet and Chinese aid to be propped up. the DPRK's economic and political system are far from sustainable - and one can literally not argue that the DPRK enforces some of the most horrific restrictions upon freedoms and quality of life. corruption is widespread in the DPRK because while power is indeed concentrated on one person, simultaneously, one person can't do everything. along with a barely-fed populace, this has led to widespread cases of officials seizing foreign aid for their own gain, competing with one another for their own resources at the detriment to the nation, and widespread cases of abuse of women because the DPRK's government is too centered.

and for PR China - it's only where it's at today because it decentralized after Mao. Mao was essentially a cult of personality figure, centering much of Chinese political culture around him. after Mao, leaders such as Deng began dismantling such a system and instead spread power to the CCP as a whole.

and finally, touching on Tsarist Russia - towards the very end of its reign, especially under Tsar Nicholas II, Russia increasingly surpressed and ignored signs of mass popular discontent that eventually led to revolution and civil war. Tsar Nicholas didn't even want to reign in the first place - which admittedly is an issue mostly restricted to hereditary monarchies. however, his numerous cases of incompetence are not exclusive.

all in all, although I do not support totalitarianism in general, in my view, it is clear that totalitarianism itself works best when power is spread throughout the state with checks and balances - the party ideally acts in efficient unison. again, I point to Singapore as a shining model. Singapore is oft praised for being one of the least corrupt and most transparent states literally ever - and this definitely shows in Singapore's stability in a multiethnic state and its massive economic boom as an Asian Tiger economy.