zhaoshuais
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 82
For example does anyone knows Song Jiaoren, who was assassinated in 1913?
After that shot, it was followed by decades of civil war. One could even say that shot essentially killed Chinese democracy because from the moment Yuan Shikai used military power to forcefully form a government according to his own will, everyone realized that ballots could not compel those holding guns to make any compromise. If the reality is so cruel, then naturally voting loses its meaning. Later, various warlords and local strongmen thought the same way. After Yuan Shikai declared himself emperor, then canceled it, and subsequently died, the Beiyang government practically lost control, leading to decades of civil war that didn't truly end until 1949.
And Song Jiaoren's death is not the only evidence of this. Before the April 12th incident in 1927, the Kuomintang (KMT) had 1.2 million party members, of which only 50,000 were communists (under "party cooperation" at the time). But after April 12th? After the purge, the KMT was left with only 200,000 members, half of whom were new recruits. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek used military force to forcibly dissolve Sun Yat-sen's party and establish his own.
The brutal truth is that majority rule through ballots has never truly been established in China, nor has it ever become a consensus. Because no real power faction is willing to submit to any disadvantageous outcome simply because they are in the minority.
However, today, America is starting to head in this direction too. Whether someone is killed or not makes little difference in the grand scheme of things; once that shot is fired, everything is over.
Nevertheless, there are inevitable factors behind this shot.
Before Song Jiaoren was assassinated, Yuan Shikai and Sun Yat-sen were essentially two independent groups with different ideas and objectives. Could a piece of paper promising majority rule really compel the loser to submit, especially when both sides had substantial weaponry?
The reason why Western systems could largely function stably for over a century (though let's remind everyone that the U.S. has had a history of civil war too) is due to a crucial implicit precondition: there must be one true ruling interest group, with elections merely deciding specific policies without fully wiping out the opposing side. Additionally, within the interest group, support for either side's policies should actually follow their own interests rather than rigidly binding them to factions. Similarly, voters must be flexible enough to switch sides based on performance rather than rigidly adhering to a single camp due to key demands. However, this precondition is now evidently being eroded. (In fact, it started to breach from the indictment of Trump.)
If both sides do not consider each other as one of their own and loyalty to their faction surpasses loyalty to the country and the constitution, we all know what happens next. Such groups cannot reach a consensus to solve problems through ballots!
Moreover, the concept of majority rule through ballots itself has loopholes significant enough to render it ultimately ineffective.
Not to mention the well-known gerrymandering (the power to draw electoral districts can almost solidify power). Why have the Democrats and Republicans ended up where they are today? A more alarming issue is whether the power to selectively welcome people who would vote for you to immigrate from outside can gradually turn the game one-sided. Similarly, if those in power enact completely unfair policies, using every tool at their disposal to support their own side and suppress opponents (for example, to the extent that opponents are forced to relocate), wouldn't that make the game lose its fairness and competitiveness?
Another issue is that the numerical majority does not equate to actual importance to society. In essence, the Democrats are a coalition cobbled together from groups whose vote costs are relatively low and who are relatively less conflicting with capital. But here lies the problem: such a coalition may have the numbers, and seemingly an advantage in terms of district GDP due to capital, yet it appears to push those who actually create value for society and demand reasonable returns to the other side, as their demands are "expensive." This has led to a peculiar phenomenon in the West, also seen in many places worldwide: the disappearance of local technical workforce—a political side effect of supporting women's rights.
The eventual result might just be that different social groups prefer to independently form societies and decide how to operate themselves, coexisting with others under some mutual non-aggression agreements, rather than continuing the current majority rule game. This could signify the end of Western-style democracy but, in a sense, could also mean an expansion of freedom. Of course, this might also imply that past objections to one-party system were misguided: acknowledging that all social groups can seek independent operation means these one-party systems were fine, and the real demand should be the right for dissenters to leave and a mechanism for reasonably dynamic distribution of world resources based on population across groups.
After that shot, it was followed by decades of civil war. One could even say that shot essentially killed Chinese democracy because from the moment Yuan Shikai used military power to forcefully form a government according to his own will, everyone realized that ballots could not compel those holding guns to make any compromise. If the reality is so cruel, then naturally voting loses its meaning. Later, various warlords and local strongmen thought the same way. After Yuan Shikai declared himself emperor, then canceled it, and subsequently died, the Beiyang government practically lost control, leading to decades of civil war that didn't truly end until 1949.
And Song Jiaoren's death is not the only evidence of this. Before the April 12th incident in 1927, the Kuomintang (KMT) had 1.2 million party members, of which only 50,000 were communists (under "party cooperation" at the time). But after April 12th? After the purge, the KMT was left with only 200,000 members, half of whom were new recruits. In fact, Chiang Kai-shek used military force to forcibly dissolve Sun Yat-sen's party and establish his own.
The brutal truth is that majority rule through ballots has never truly been established in China, nor has it ever become a consensus. Because no real power faction is willing to submit to any disadvantageous outcome simply because they are in the minority.
However, today, America is starting to head in this direction too. Whether someone is killed or not makes little difference in the grand scheme of things; once that shot is fired, everything is over.
Nevertheless, there are inevitable factors behind this shot.
Before Song Jiaoren was assassinated, Yuan Shikai and Sun Yat-sen were essentially two independent groups with different ideas and objectives. Could a piece of paper promising majority rule really compel the loser to submit, especially when both sides had substantial weaponry?
The reason why Western systems could largely function stably for over a century (though let's remind everyone that the U.S. has had a history of civil war too) is due to a crucial implicit precondition: there must be one true ruling interest group, with elections merely deciding specific policies without fully wiping out the opposing side. Additionally, within the interest group, support for either side's policies should actually follow their own interests rather than rigidly binding them to factions. Similarly, voters must be flexible enough to switch sides based on performance rather than rigidly adhering to a single camp due to key demands. However, this precondition is now evidently being eroded. (In fact, it started to breach from the indictment of Trump.)
If both sides do not consider each other as one of their own and loyalty to their faction surpasses loyalty to the country and the constitution, we all know what happens next. Such groups cannot reach a consensus to solve problems through ballots!
Moreover, the concept of majority rule through ballots itself has loopholes significant enough to render it ultimately ineffective.
Not to mention the well-known gerrymandering (the power to draw electoral districts can almost solidify power). Why have the Democrats and Republicans ended up where they are today? A more alarming issue is whether the power to selectively welcome people who would vote for you to immigrate from outside can gradually turn the game one-sided. Similarly, if those in power enact completely unfair policies, using every tool at their disposal to support their own side and suppress opponents (for example, to the extent that opponents are forced to relocate), wouldn't that make the game lose its fairness and competitiveness?
Another issue is that the numerical majority does not equate to actual importance to society. In essence, the Democrats are a coalition cobbled together from groups whose vote costs are relatively low and who are relatively less conflicting with capital. But here lies the problem: such a coalition may have the numbers, and seemingly an advantage in terms of district GDP due to capital, yet it appears to push those who actually create value for society and demand reasonable returns to the other side, as their demands are "expensive." This has led to a peculiar phenomenon in the West, also seen in many places worldwide: the disappearance of local technical workforce—a political side effect of supporting women's rights.
The eventual result might just be that different social groups prefer to independently form societies and decide how to operate themselves, coexisting with others under some mutual non-aggression agreements, rather than continuing the current majority rule game. This could signify the end of Western-style democracy but, in a sense, could also mean an expansion of freedom. Of course, this might also imply that past objections to one-party system were misguided: acknowledging that all social groups can seek independent operation means these one-party systems were fine, and the real demand should be the right for dissenters to leave and a mechanism for reasonably dynamic distribution of world resources based on population across groups.
