What conditions democracy and authoritarianism in the world?

[palestine]

Hello,I would like to propose a question to the Cassiopaeans.

I came across a text written by someone who worked with A. Lobaczewski in the USA. He wrote the following:
The Psychological Roots of Communism | Marian Wasilewski

Marian WASILEWSKI - “The Psychological Roots of Communism”

I. THE POLITICAL DIVISION OF THE WORLD

Why, Arjuna, in this decisive moment of danger, are you overcome by this shameful despair, unworthy of a warrior, which closes the heavens and leads to disgrace? (1). Bhagavad-Gita (II - 2)

There is an ancient Indian legend in which the god Shiva takes part in an endless dance of happiness with his divine wife Shakhty . Their children are the forms of the manifested world. In Chinese culture, there are two elements, Yin and Yang, which, in creating the world, determine each other and cannot exist independently. In our own times, we talk of the twofold nature of all existence. And although our intuition tries to tell us of the basic unity of all matter, our senses and intellect assure us that everything is bipolar and has an opposite. Philosophers and scientists call this phenomenon the binary polarization of existence.

Much points to the fact that this dissociation, which we must accept as a universal law, also occurs in social life. It can even be seen in ancient Biblical symbolism, as in the contrasting characters of Abel and Cain. Every historical period gives us numerous examples of this dissociation. Today’s political division of the world is also an expression thereof.

The two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union , constitute the poles of this division. They are opposite on all points-world outlook, ideology, politics, and ethics - although in the most general sense they both derive from the same human cultural heritage. Between these poles there exists a tension which expresses these differences. Colloquially, one speaks of two systems: the democratic (or pluralistic) and the totalitarian.

The author speaks of a phenomenon of intelligent design, and it is impossible to determine its origin.The effect of this phenomenon translates into a "democracy-like" influence in the West and, in the author's words, a "totalitarian" influence in the Eastern part of the world.
I did some research and came across the following map:

As you can see, the phenomenon suggested by Mr. Wasilewski seems to be illustrated. However, the map indicates that these are "authoritarian" regimes (not "totalitarian").

M. Wasilewski wrote his text in 1987, and his consideration of the two "forces" is a +/-. For him, while Communism had caused a lot of damage, democracy was a salvation.

However, we see today that "democracy" can also suffer from terrible degeneration.

In my opinion, Mr. Wasilewski might have noticed/understood that the world is subject to two major influences that have an impact on the basic political structure. He determined that it was a +/- radius.

I would tend to observe that Russia, China, Korea, etc., do indeed tend to attribute more power to the state, out of a principle that comes from who knows where. This does not constitute a "-" situation, but an even reflection of "democracy".

The second line of force would be "authoritarian," a neutral situation for "a strong state."

So, here are the variables for my question!

Is there really a kind of double polarization of political regimes in the world?

Is it "natural"?

What conditions it?

We observe that democratic regimes have preferred the Capitalist ideology, while Eastern regimes overwhelmingly favor Communism.

Today, we are observing a pathocratic drift in the West (England, France, Germany, Biden's USA), and we have had a totalitarian drift each time with Communism. It becomes strange to observe that "the World" produces a shell that will find its footing in an ideology more likely to degenerate into pathocracy. I would suspect an intelligent STS design, but I am retaining, too, a "natural" alternative. In this case, the factor of degeneration towards pathocracy intervenes in another place.

I would be happy if you could tell me what you think.

I really appreciate the author's initial idea—it's as if he had "seen" a structure of the world. It's very original.

What's very interesting is that A. Lobaczewski explained that pathocracy developed from an ideology. Here, we have the existence of a prior, hierarchically superior shell (pluralism > Capitalism). We could thus define more precise foundations for the phenomenon of pathocracy.

(translated from French)

 

[axj]

We observe that democratic regimes have preferred the Capitalist ideology, while Eastern regimes overwhelmingly favor Communism.

That has not been the case for over 30 years. Now everyone favors capitalism, even nominally 'communist' China.

What seems to be changing though is that globalism is increasingly seen as a failure and some major countries are focusing on more self-sufficiency, eg. Russia and the US.

It is hard to see a polar opposite today in the world similar to the "capitalism vs communism" ideological opposites in the past.

Maybe a multipolar world vs unipolar dominance is the closest ideological difference today, which is basically BRICS vs the West.

 

[T.C.]

We observe that democratic regimes have preferred the Capitalist ideology, while Eastern regimes overwhelmingly favor Communism.

I think a better distinction on this point would be that in the west there has developed a stronger leaning towards individualism, whereas in the east, there is a strong feeling of collectivism.

This might give us a more fundamental conceptual framework for understanding liberal democracy vs communism as offshoots of these two different kinds of ideas about how someone fits into and relates to the world and other people around them.

It becomes strange to observe that "the World" produces a shell that will find its footing in an ideology more likely to degenerate into pathocracy.

The question of what kind of constitution is best for a society is an ancient one, but regardless of which we might think are better and which are worse, the main problem is psychopathology. Different political ideologies and societal structures don’t ‘degenerate’ into pathocracies. Psychopaths rise up through all political systems and ponerise them due what Lobacewski identified as the Hysteroidal Cycle: good times produce people who are weak, selfish, hedonistic and ignorant. This is the fertile soil that allows for the flourishing of pathocracy.

 

[palestine]

I think a better distinction on this point would be that in the west there has developed a stronger leaning towards individualism, whereas in the east, there is a strong feeling of collectivism.

If I look at the dichotomy stated by the author, I see "democracy" and "totalitarian" (that I suspected would be "authoritarian" instead of totalitarist).

Somehow, that would be a perfect match with individualism and collectivism.

The standard political reflection of those two "tendencies" (individualism / collectivism) would amount to a basic organization, as follows: democratic-like processes, on one side, for the individualism, while the collectivist polarity would be favoring a strong state in charge of several aspects.

But I see that you may be stating those two concepts in terms of "spirit" rather than too-firm principles. This would suggest another approach, something more "organic" for the study of societies.

This might give us a more fundamental conceptual framework for understanding liberal democracy vs communism as offshoots of these two different kinds of ideas about how someone fits into and relates to the world and other people around them.

If I look at your idea I would tend to organize things like this:

INDIVIDUALISM | COLLECTIVISM
| |
democracy authoritarianism
| |
Capitalism Communism

So "liberal democracy" would not be the straight antagonist / reflection of "Communism"

The question of what kind of constitution is best for a society is an ancient one, but regardless of which we might think are better and which are worse, the main problem is psychopathology. Different political ideologies and societal structures don’t ‘degenerate’ into pathocracies. Psychopaths rise up through all political systems and ponerise them due what Lobacewski identified as the Hysteroidal Cycle: good times produce people who are weak, selfish, hedonistic and ignorant. This is the fertile soil that allows for the flourishing of pathocracy.

If I consider "the existence of a great ideology of some sort" as one of the factors for a pathocracy to start, I would see that the model explained by the author favors "a structuring around an ideology". Especially in terms of triggering a basic democracy/authoritarian polarity, which would then almost automatically pick a subsequent ideology, Communism being the most obvious one.

And then, A. Lobaczewski explains that one scenario is that ideologies that are found in midst of pathocraties are sometimes schizoïdal. I would be tempted to consider that those two initial polarities of democracy/authoritarianism would tend to favour schizoidal ideologies, at some point in time - because, for instance, the authoritarian one is a straight road to Communism. I don't know if we can label democracy as schizoïdal - but there have been very harsh criticism of the concept itself.

And so, I would tend to be very suspicious of this odd ground that would later be exploited easily by a pathocracy. This would need to enter in conjunction with an hysterical society.

I could be seen as "a devil's advocate", but I am double-checking on one issue; a very conspirationist one indeed, and I would go as far as to ponder those two initial polarities as "one cog of a machine" that would, too, yield a second cog - "triggering hysteria". The third cog, the existence of psychopaths, is already a perennial factor. But, as stated, I consider, too, as you state it, that pathocracy acts as an external actor, in an ideological "human" state of affair (which is how it is), and that the "conspirationist" approach is worth nothing.

Thank you all for your comments, ideas, and takes. I see that guy, the Marian Wasilewski, which comes by with a very creative idea. He seems to know a bit about several things, and have been under a harsh pathocratic system. A lot of suffering. This sometimes triggers a spark of some sort, a discovery. Reading his paper shows how bad the situation was, to the extent of willing to "build democracy everywhere". He, too, proceeds to several shortcuts: "Communism" is alternatively switched with "Totalitarianism". According to the author, the whole East is "bad" and requires changes. This cannot be. And so, I would tend to see his article as a high level exercise, with the initial super-creative idea; then, "a guy alone digressing on those ideas", would see the quality/content looses in objectivity. A common process. That's how I "read" his paper. The point is that he initially comes by with an appreciation of cosmic processes, rather than political spec. He then applies it to discern its manifestation etc. I am pondering if this guy "saw something" of validity. Something like "seeing the unseen". But he would then be alone and could not exactly apply it to reality.

 

[palestine]

Hello! Thank you for your consideration and takes!

That has not been the case for over 30 years. Now everyone favors capitalism, even nominally 'communist' China.

I would not subordinate Communism for Capitalism, in China. They may have some aspects of it, but I would tend to observe a strong Communist basis, to the extent that it would be subjective to look at "Capitalism in China". But that's my opinion of course.

It is hard to see a polar opposite today in the world similar to the "capitalism vs communism" ideological opposites in the past.

Yes, very true. Regimes softened, there is a blend, and international exchanges makes so that the "scene" features less "isolated" nations. But I am wondering: is it reflective? Could there be that below the surface, intangible dynamics are still at play?

Maybe a multipolar world vs unipolar dominance is the closest ideological difference today, which is basically BRICS vs the West.

Thank you for the consideration, thus for the qualificatives.

I am not used to study the words for political structures - and unipolar, multipolar seem to be useable definitions.

The author I quoted would be speaking of a "dual unipolarity" then.