why i am against democracy

The American people would have done more for themselves if they had realized that America is essentially a one-party state. --Harold Lasswell, Politics

Democracy is a morally neutral political system. Ideological "democracy" is not only big and useless, but also loses its academic significance.

I studied mathematics in the mainland, statistics in the United States, and then studied history in Taiwan for two years, and now I have returned to the United States to study history, so I have some contact with groups that are often labeled as China, the United States, Taiwan, liberal arts students, and science students. A friend recommended me to sign up for matters, saying that I can speak freely. I took a look, and most of them were discussing the Hong Kong issue, and most of them were surprisingly consistent in their positions and arguments, holding high the banner of freedom and democracy, which was a bit disappointing. It's not that I disagree with these views, I just dislike the chorus, and the chorus of democracy is also a chorus.

After reading a few articles claiming to block friends because of their political stance, I think it's not worth it. It’s not because politics is lower than friendship, but because seeking common ground while reserving differences is interesting. You can’t take yourself too seriously when studying liberal arts. For example, I can’t represent any mainlanders, and I don’t intend to publish the truth of the universe and the value of human beings. I just want to share myself voice, just heard a different voice.

There can be countless logically self-consistent systems in mathematics. Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry have opposite definitions, but they do not contradict each other. In other words, there can be many points of view that are contrary to mine and can be justified. I don't stigmatize people who think differently than I do, and I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging seemingly contradictory things at the same time. Compared with "democracy" and "freedom", I have a higher value judgment, which is to avoid homogenization. Homogenization is not only sad, but most importantly, boring. Everyone is destined to meet online, so why not confront each other, the more fierce the quarrel, the better. If there is still only one opinion on the "freedom forum", then this freedom exists in name only. So today I will be the villain, and talk about why I oppose democracy with a clear-cut stand.

When a Lu Sheng said that he was against democracy, you must have had a lot of speculations in your mind, probably it was "economic development determinism", "crowds know etiquette", "Chinese are not suitable for democracy" and other commonplaces. So let me ask another question:

Does opposing democracy equal support for undemocracy (tyranny), and does opposing freedom equal support for unfreedom (dictatorship)?

If your answer to these two questions is yes, I have become a lackey who supports tyranny and dictatorship. That's really unfair. During the exchange in Taiwan, Wang Dan started a debate on unification and independence. Some Lu Sheng raised the theory of missile threat and economic temptation. I can't agree with it either. The reason for raising this question is also to remind you of the trap of natural language: natural language often cannot distinguish between complex logical levels, and tends to flatten the understanding of different people's views and positions, as if opposing democracy can only support or condone tyranny.

It is much clearer to describe this level in mathematical language. Opposing democracy can be the opposite of democracy (let’s say it is tyranny), or it can be the complement of democracy, or it can be standing in a high-dimensional space, in which democracy is no longer One dimension, which shrinks into a trivial point in a higher-dimensional space.

If this is a bit abstract, let me put it in the language of history. Schopenhauer also opposes democracy, but in his mind this is completely incompatible with supporting tyranny. He praises the monarchy and demonstrates in detail how corrupt and despicable people are under the republic system; Aristotle will wonder if you Why do you ask him whether he supports democracy, because there are five other systems, and the advantages and disadvantages of each system vary according to conditions.

But I have no intention of citing classics to argue that democracy is not suitable for China, and I am not interested in parroting. What interests me is that historically, there have been so many understandings of the same concept—but now it’s so flat. Regardless of whether it supports Hong Kong Occupy Central or opposes it, the definition and understanding of democracy is superficial and vague from an academic point of view, but it is also vaguely consistent.

In other words, what I object to is not the idea of democracy, but the binary opposition (democracy/tyranny) behind the contemporary "democratic narrative". Few people can proudly claim to like tyranny, so everyone is arguing about "is it tyranny?" Or you say he was brainwashed by Marx, and he says you are a giant baby of democracy who eats meat. Fighting hand to hand under the banner of morality is no different from watching ideological porn?

For those who accept the binary opposition of democracy/tyranny, asking whether you support democracy or not is like asking whether you want a democratic system or want to eat shit. When you say seriously that you want to eat shit, he is of course shocked and confused. So I understand the incomprehension. The problem is that others don’t want to eat shit, but the flattening of the “democratic narrative” has brought cognitive bias.

Politics is politics, people's livelihood is people's livelihood, employment is employment, and lawsuits are lawsuits. Why do they all have to be related to "ism" and "value". The great democracy fighter Hu Shizhi once said, "Talk more about issues and less about doctrines." I don't know if he really felt that way, but he still wanted to say to Chen Duxiu, "Talk less about communism." This is a very harmonious sentence, if the wind blows to the left, it will deflect to the right. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the westerly wind has blown on the ideological battlefield. This sentence is still useful, but it sounds to the left again.

I am a sad reminder of the Chinese fans. Chinese football has been rotten for many years. From the commentator to the old man at the entrance of the village, he just said, "Chinese football is a system problem, not a human problem." As a result, the Chinese Super League has been commercialized for so many years. In addition to being stupid and rich, football is getting worse and worse. (Of course, fans can continue to blame the Football Association and the system, anyway, the concept of unfalsifiability is so easy to use) However, from the perspective of Hong Kong, Hong Kong people are much smaller than the mainland, but compared with South America and Eastern Europe, it is still a populous country, and the masses are also enthusiastic. , the Premier League pays more every year than the entire continent, and football is still just as bad. I don't understand why mainland fans never use Hong Kong to falsify the "system theory". It may be that everyone has been wandering in the ocean of ideology for a long time, and they have forgotten: football is played by people in the final analysis.

I don't believe that a Hong Kong person, who is usually a good person, suddenly rotted his soul from the moment he joined the police force, as if he was dealing with the devil, and vice versa. This black-and-white fighting logic is the result of the virtualization of the word "democracy". Because we want to pursue the highest value of democracy, all obstacles are accomplices. Under this kind of awareness, Hong Kong people and mainlanders can form a contradiction between the enemy and the people, and the Occupy Central people and the Hong Kong police form a set of contradictions between the enemy and the enemy—but the second set of contradictions and the first set of contradictions are themselves another kind of contradiction. This kind of thinking can't stimulate real communication except for dividing camps and huddling together for warmth. When democracy, as a political system, is tied to moral superiority, it becomes big and useless—it can only be used as a gun, or an automatic rifle that shoots indiscriminately.

Of course, I can accuse some people in Hong Kong and Taiwan of not understanding procedural justice, violating the law, and not having the "basic literacy of democracy". , you can easily use similar logic to attack the mainland, and more importantly, you and I have fallen into the weird pit of "democratic narrative". Waste your energy fighting to the death on the definitions of these words, and let the capitalists of all nationalities behind you exchange cups and talk happily.

There is a football commentator in China who is known for his lack of professional ability. But this gentleman has a good reputation among non-fans, why? Because he often speaks out for "the system problems of Chinese football" in the commentary, he is so strong. Once a certain Premier League club came to the CCP to propose a friendly match. Liu Jun usually did not comment on the Premier League, and the players on the field could not recognize each other. I saw that a certain foreign star scored a world wave, and the fans cheered loudly. Liu was so quick-witted that he said, "When will the players in our country receive such cheers..." Then he began to talk about the system of Chinese football for ten minutes, and his grief was beyond words. For those who watched the game for the first time, this is a very national-minded commentator. I watched him a lot, and I knew that he started talking nonsense again to cover up his lack of professional ability. The system, the system is the culprit , or free and unfalsifiable subterfuge?

The virtualization of democracy is the same. Politicians don’t talk about the economy, don’t talk about their election promises, and they can cheat votes by pulling a few banners at will. Why not do it? Anyway, it can't solve the problem of employment, so let the other side blame it; capitalists can shift their spearhead to ideology, and they are happy to have a leisurely time, why not do it? Anyway, enclosing land raises housing prices and dumps the pot to the other side. I exchanged and studied in Taiwan and experienced two general elections. Usually, the complaints of peers are nothing more than 22k, employment is difficult, no money can not find a girlfriend, tool people are so miserable blabla; when it comes to the general election, it suddenly changes, talking about the unity and independence of lgbt, for the freedom and dignity of human beings. Makes me wonder, am I watching The Truman Show? Which is the real personality? The performative persona of a politician eventually sinks down to the voters.

I hope to "cancel" the ideology-style, big and useless "democracy" and restore the original connotation of its political system.

I have always felt that Trump's election shows that the United States is worthy of the old-fashioned democratic country, and the people's democratic literacy is indeed high. This has nothing to do with Trump's political views, but a politician can be elected despite the bombardment of the major mainstream media (this is absolutely impossible in Taiwan), which shows that voters have a certain self-judgment (whether this judgment is right or wrong is another matter) same thing), and there are quite a few of them. You may think that I support Trump's racism and sexism again, but I don't. I'm just saying that this reflects a certain level of democratic literacy. In the final analysis, democracy is just a morally neutral word, but it carries too many illusory concepts nowadays. Instead of making up for the contradictions that these illusory concepts will inevitably lead to (such as violating procedural justice, is it still a democracy, or does the iron fist of democracy have the same moral immunity as the iron fist of socialism?), it is better to think about who caused this The concept is gradually alienated, who is the real beneficiary.

Let’s take a look at a late Ming naughty joke:

When a husband and wife have sex, the husband dislikes his wife's sinfulness. The wife said: "It's not difficult, just put me on top and it will be tight." The husband said: "Why?" Said: Living above is not wide.

Comment: How can the master manage a lot?

In ancient times, everyone used Confucius as an excuse, and even husband and wife can use the old master's "not being generous" as a shield. But "the master can't control a lot", can't "democracy", "system", and "value" be able to control sexual affairs? Democracy is not Viagra.

Youth spirit, human nature. However, before deciding on a road that claims to throw blood at the end, one must first think about whether this road was also dug in advance by others. (Of course, those who can really throw their heads have nothing to do with their positions, and I respect them all.)

The American people would have done more for themselves if they had realized that America is essentially a one-party state. —Harold Lasswell

I look forward to your comments, and welcome criticism. If expressing dissent can give people a kind of self-satisfaction, then I have a lot of desires, and I am willing to be a dissident among dissidents. It doesn't matter if you accuse or abuse, as long as you don't homogenize, otherwise you will lose the fun of communication. It's like someone scolded the same thing, then you can scold it from a different angle. I also tried to challenge and even cancel the concept of "freedom". I talked with American classmates and thought about it more abstractly, so I can't write it here. If you have the generosity, I can continue to write.