Thread:RedLightningStrike/@comment-34650195-20190109115856/@comment-33706373-20190112174632

>Democracy implies rule of the people. It's purpose is to serve individual will of persons rather than objective greater good. The only way to keep democracy working wight is by enforcing religious, collectivist, moralistic and sometimes militaristic values to prevent it from naturally decaying. Which is something no democracy will do for a long time because it is in human individualistic nature to wish things to be more "easy" and "pleasant" for himself and therefore all democracies are destined to fall into degeneracy. The only way to combat this is to enforce these things against the people's will, which implies existence of a powerful point outside of people's control. That is why authoritarism adn democracy cannot coexist. Either it is a fake democracy or it is an authoritarian regime that will collapse.

Wew it is impossible to continue discussing about that with you if you keep insisting the only way to the concept of democracy is the liberal one where people enter into a nihilist individualistic idea. All the points you claim to be ausent in a democracy (that I agree are) however are present in the concept I’m talking here

I mean I gave you the example of Sun Zhongshan Confucian democracy that has literally nothing to do you with what you implied in the second paragraph since it is a collectivist and authoritarian concept by nature, taking from the starting point the Chinese culture by itself is collecvist. So you call it a fake democracy, well that is what individualistic liberals say too

I suggest you two books to read, first Kim Il Sung short essay “The Political Programme of the Government of the DPRK” where he explains this concept for Korea. And for the one practiced initially in China, the idea is in the “The Principle of Democracy” by Sun Zhongshan where this concept is better explained

>What Greco-Roman culture has to do with Freemasons. Both Roman and Greeks started democracy as an experiment and then recognized that it as incombinable with their republican culture (Greco-Roman concept of a republic was radically different from what it is now) and replaced them with monarchies. The Freemasons from the Western Europe had ideals that were directly opposed to Greco-Roman Republicanism and therefore they adopted democracy. When they were implementing it upon the Western European society they put a great propagandist emphasis upon its Greco-Roman origins because everything associated with ancient Rome and Greece was seen as superior and particularly civilized, while trying to put away emphasis from that Greco-Roman idology was about something completely different. Fascists and Metaxists tried to actually revive those ideals in some slightly changed, simplified and modernized form but then the Nazis cam and ruined everything.

The Greco Roman democracy was purely a matter of votes, if you wanted to win a court case, pass a law, tax a group, go to war or massacre a large number of people, the only check was whether you could convince a majority of the citizens to vote in your favor. While there were means of checking individual people like the Ostracon this did nothing to check the power of the crowds, as it only removed one focus of this power.

This again has few to do besides the name with the concept of democracy developed by the Asian countries that keep loyalty to Confucius works (North Korea, China and Singapore some way). It is not about votes or individual freedoms, it is about legitimacy since in the nationalist thesis the masses are the center of the society and the ones who own the traditional culture, not some exclusive form of government

None of these concepts were used to describe the principle of democracy in Tridemism, rather it is described as the “people’s power” over the lack of illegitimacy the ruling class can develop with the people, as it used to happen at the end with the dynasties

>It can damage the system or be done without democracy

Again you didn’t understand which concept of I’m referring to

>But there were a very few of them. Confucianism specifically emphasized upon loyalisty and humanism.

These varies according to the conditions in each state, if the ruler is unable to take care of the people and major famines manage to happen, it is because the heaven concept is unsatisfied with it, therefore it is illegitimate in all possible concepts of the Confucian philosophy.

It is all about welfare of the people and social harmony, and this happened in all dynasties that managed to be overthrown. That is why you had few loyalists of the former emperors in Chinese history or why nobody asked for the return of the monarchy after Qing

>Quing wasn't as bad as you tell. They were heavily hanified, they preserved Chinese culture and built a strong multicultural empire.

People already know very well what I think of later Qing rule