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.

 

[T.C.]

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

Is it "natural"?

What conditions it?

I would guess the answers would be something like:

1) Not as much as there used to be in the 20th century, but it’s still there.

2) By “natural”, I think you mean something like ‘an inevitability inherent in humans’. I think if there’s anything inherent in humans that would lead to inevitable political structures, it’s that humans are docile livestock, like sheep, and politics and ideologies are like wooden fences that keep some sheep in one field and other sheep in other fields.

The problem with discussing the idea of ‘naturalness’ in humans is that we’re engineered by hyperdimensional beings and so there isn’t really anything natural about us. The reason it’s ‘natural’ for sheep to just stay in one place is because we have selectively bred them to be easy to control.

3) In general, I think “what conditions it” is what I’ve stated above: human biological and behavioural tendencies.

Specifically with east vs west differences, I think it would be fruitful to look at the differences in values between the religious and philosophical systems: Judeo- Christianity and the history of the Western intellectual tradition, vs Confucianism.

—————————

I had a chat with Grok about it:

Prompt: I suspect that the reason for individualism in the west vs collectivism in the east is due to the western intellectual tradition and Judeo-Christianity vs Confucianism. Does this make sense? Don’t lie, Grok.

Answer: Yes, your suspicion makes sense as a partial explanation—it’s a view supported by many scholars and cultural historians who point to these philosophical and religious traditions as significant influences on the development of individualism in the West and collectivism in the East. However, it’s not the only factor; other elements like ecology, economics, and historical events also play roles, and the East-West divide isn’t always as stark as it seems. I’ll break this down step by step with evidence from reliable sources.


Western Individualism and Its Roots


The Western emphasis on individualism—prioritizing personal autonomy, rights, and self-expression—does indeed trace back to the ancient Greek intellectual tradition, which celebrated individual reason, debate, and achievement through figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This was later amplified during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, where thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau built on ideas of individual liberty and natural rights.


Judeo-Christianity contributes here too, particularly through concepts like the inherent dignity of the individual (e.g., every person made in God’s image), personal moral responsibility, and the idea of an individual covenant or relationship with God. Christianity, in particular, universalized human dignity, extending it beyond tribal or class boundaries, which laid groundwork for modern ideas of individual rights and equality. This contrasts with more collectivist ancient societies and helped foster a cultural shift toward valuing the self over the group in Europe and its offshoots.


Eastern Collectivism and Confucianism


On the Eastern side, collectivism—focusing on group harmony, social roles, and interdependence—is strongly tied to Confucianism, which has shaped much of East Asian culture for over two millennia. Confucius emphasized filial piety, respect for hierarchy, and the importance of fulfilling one’s duties within family and society to maintain order and balance. This promotes a “we-first” mindset, where individual desires are subordinated to collective well-being, as seen in concepts like ren (benevolence) and li (ritual propriety). In countries like China, Japan, and Korea, this has historically reinforced group-oriented behaviors, from family structures to governance.


Studies show that Confucian values correlate with higher collectivism scores in cross-cultural comparisons, often measured by frameworks like Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.


Why This Makes Sense But Isn’t the Full Picture


These traditions align well with observed cultural differences: Westerners tend to think more analytically and independently, while East Asians often prioritize holistic, relational thinking. Your idea captures a core dynamic, as these philosophies have been transmitted through education, institutions, and norms over centuries.


That said, it’s an oversimplification to pin it all on these factors. For instance:


• Ecological influences: The “rice theory” suggests that labor-intensive rice farming in parts of East Asia encouraged cooperation and interdependence, fostering collectivism, while wheat farming in the West allowed more individual effort.


• Geographic and historical variations: Not all “Eastern” cultures are uniformly collectivist (e.g., India has individualistic elements), and the East-West binary can break down when looking North-South or at sub-regions. Economic modernization and globalization are also blurring these lines today.


• Other traditions: Buddhism and Taoism in the East add layers beyond Confucianism, sometimes emphasizing personal enlightenment, while Western collectivist streaks exist in communal religious practices or socialism.


In empirical studies, individualism-collectivism is a spectrum influenced by deep historical roots, including but not limited to religion and philosophy. So, your hunch is reasonable and echoes common academic views, but reality is multifaceted—no single cause explains it all. If you want to dive deeper into a specific aspect, like evidence from psychology or history, let me know.

New prompt: In a similar vein, is it likely that the reason for the capitalist vs communist systems stems from individualism vs collectivism?

Response:
Yes, it’s a reasonable and commonly held view that the ideological foundations of capitalism and communism are closely tied to individualism and collectivism, respectively, though this is more of a correlative relationship than a direct causal “reason” for their emergence or adoption in different societies. Many scholars and commentators see capitalism as an extension of individualistic values—emphasizing personal initiative, private property, competition, and self-interest as drivers of progress—while communism aligns with collectivist principles, prioritizing group ownership, equality, and communal welfare over individual gain. However, like your previous question, this isn’t the full story; historical, economic, and political contexts are crucial, and the divide isn’t absolute. I’ll explain step by step.


The Alignment Between Systems and Cultural Values


• Capitalism and Individualism: Capitalism, as it developed in Western contexts (e.g., during the Industrial Revolution in Britain and the U.S.), rewards individual entrepreneurship, innovation, and risk-taking. This resonates with individualistic cultures that value personal autonomy and achievement, as seen in Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith, who argued that self-interest in free markets benefits society overall (the “invisible hand”). In individualistic societies, economic systems like capitalism reinforce norms of personal responsibility and meritocracy, where success is often attributed to individual effort rather than collective support.


• Communism and Collectivism: Communism, as outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, critiques capitalism’s inequalities and advocates for collective control of production to eliminate class divisions. This draws on collectivist ideas, where the group’s needs supersede the individual’s, aiming for a classless society through shared resources and planning. In historically collectivist regions like Russia or China, communism found fertile ground partly because it aligned with existing emphases on community, hierarchy, and mutual dependence, though it was often imposed top-down rather than emerging organically.


This connection is evident in cross-cultural studies and historical analyses, where individualistic nations (e.g., the U.S., U.K.) lean toward capitalist models, while more collectivist ones (e.g., former Soviet states, Cuba) adopted communist systems.


Evidence of a Relationship, But Not Sole Causation


Empirical research supports a link: For instance, during the transition from communism to capitalism in Eastern Europe after 1989, shifts toward individualistic values often preceded or accompanied economic reforms, suggesting that cultural orientations influence (and are influenced by) systemic changes. In post-communist societies, adopting capitalism involved promoting individualism, like personal property rights and market competition, which clashed with prior collectivist norms.


That said, it’s not purely causal—communism didn’t arise solely from collectivism any more than capitalism did from individualism. Key caveats:


• Historical Contingencies: Communism emerged as a response to 19th-century industrial capitalism’s exploitative conditions in Europe, not just cultural collectivism. Its spread (e.g., via the Bolshevik Revolution or Mao’s China) involved revolutions, wars, and power struggles, not just value systems.


• Economic and Structural Factors: Capitalism thrived in regions with early industrialization, trade, and legal frameworks for private enterprise. Communism often took root in agrarian or underdeveloped economies seeking rapid modernization through state control.


• Blurring the Lines: Not all capitalist systems are purely individualistic (e.g., Nordic social democracies blend capitalism with collectivist welfare states), and communism in practice often featured hierarchical control rather than true collectivism. Some argue capitalism itself has collectivist elements, like corporate structures that prioritize group (shareholder) interests over individuals.


• Bidirectional Influence: Values and systems reinforce each other—capitalism can foster individualism over time, while communism can impose collectivist behaviors.


In summary, yes, the individualism-collectivism spectrum likely contributes to why certain societies gravitated toward capitalism or communism, echoing how cultural philosophies shape broader worldviews (as in your East-West example). But it’s one thread in a complex tapestry; no single factor “stems” from another without considering geopolitics, technology, and ideology. If you’d like sources on specific transitions (e.g., post-Soviet capitalism) or comparisons, I can dig deeper.

 

[palestine]

I would guess the answers would be something like:

1) Not as much as there used to be in the 20th century, but it’s still there.

2) By “natural”, I think you mean something like ‘an inevitability inherent in humans’. I think if there’s anything inherent in humans that would lead to inevitable political structures, it’s that humans are docile livestock, like sheep, and politics and ideologies are like wooden fences that keep some sheep in one field and other sheep in other fields.

The problem with discussing the idea of ‘naturalness’ in humans is that we’re engineered by hyperdimensional beings and so there isn’t really anything natural about us. The reason it’s ‘natural’ for sheep to just stay in one place is because we have selectively bred them to be easy to control.

3) In general, I think “what conditions it” is what I’ve stated above: human biological and behavioural tendencies.

Specifically with east vs west differences, I think it would be fruitful to look at the differences in values between the religious and philosophical systems: Judeo- Christianity and the history of the Western intellectual tradition, vs Confucianism.

—————————

I had a chat with Grok about it:

Thanks, quite a bunch of very interesting inputs to ponder. Thank you for your consideration, your time and takes.

I would tend to disagree with the following statement:

Empirical research supports a link: For instance, during the transition from communism to capitalism in Eastern Europe after 1989

Forum member @axj said, too, something along those lines - but I cannot fathom that the East would adopt Capitalism, especially after a century driven by a monolithic ideological ground. Russia would be headed for different waters - but everything except "Capitalism". I believe that given the West's attitude, too, most Eastern countries are rather laughing at "Capitalism" as a viable way for things.

Of course, we can observe that specific aspects of Capitalism are borrowed; the consumerist aspect, and, could be, some way of dealing with money. But, I mean, something is bothering me in such plain use of East-Capitalism.

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

1) Not as much as there used to be in the 20th century, but it’s still there.

I agree with this statement, but would tend not to be able to consider it as a definite conclusion; could be hazardous to move on with certainty, based on this principle; what if reality appears the opposite (wondering!)?

2) By “natural”, I think you mean something like ‘an inevitability inherent in humans’.

Well, I wouldn't attach a pejorative aspect to this inevitability, but yes. "Irreconciliability", antagonistic forces.

I wouldn't attach the inevitability as "inherent to humans", because I did not ask myself the question. I would consider this as a general state of affairs. Whatever alien, human, STS etc would then be facing it. Somehow, a basic presence / existence of those two forces. What the people out there do with it, how they change it (or not), etc etc, would be then further considerations. So, yes, in a sense, this inevitability would then be one of the various existing influences, for humans. But I look at the whole Planet as a whole, with basically those two forces "natively" "popping up". Not that those would be the main one. Just being present, as an influence.

I think if there’s anything inherent in humans that would lead to inevitable political structures, it’s that humans are docile livestock, like sheep, and politics and ideologies are like wooden fences that keep some sheep in one field and other sheep in other fields.

The problem with discussing the idea of ‘naturalness’ in humans is that we’re engineered by hyperdimensional beings and so there isn’t really anything natural about us. The reason it’s ‘natural’ for sheep to just stay in one place is because we have selectively bred them to be easy to control.

Yes, that's a very interesting branch of study, popping up from those concepts, and I am trying to figure out the role of pathocracy with this state of affairs. Given your description of the human condition (which I agree with), I would find it reasonable than to suspect that human structures will be periodically, and artificially/consciously hit by pathocraties.

That's quite a something, because the model stated by Bringers of Dawn portrays a giant prison planet, with few openings to raw freedom. And, meanwhile, I am caught in A. Lobaczewski's book which may emphasizes a concept of "the human Planet & how human structures are sometimes turning wrong". So, milder. This could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that I completely missed "the big dark picture" - of the book.

I understand that I forged my feeling with the fact that "human structures can occasionally undergo the disease pathocracy". This gives the feeling of the existence of a perennial state of affairs, for humans - while Bringers of Dawn (and C's, could be, too) are quite on a more rude picture. I would be happy if you would like to provide some two cents about that!

This represents two initial equations, for me, from which to start a framework. To bind it then to those two "political forces", depends on the one we would consider. I don't even know if the author is on to something objective. This appears to me like a big puzzle! And I appreciate the mentions of STO/STS, "big trends", as metaphysics. Was wondering if this author was onto something objective.

I understand that the hyperdimensional STS control system has to be factored in. I would be happy to discern its scope/activity in regard of A. Lobaczeski's data, as stated above, for example. That's something I am not used to, and I am more or less at the level of "there exists psychopaths" - and "psychopaths are aliens". Thank you!

 

[palestine]

I had a chat with Grok about it:

Zero pun intended. I would like to point out how the answers make sense, and how it's nicely articulated. I find it very interesting - but I would see a "but" :)

I believe that STS/STO dynamics (and their respective motions) conditions things - especially power centers, so political motions would be quite susceptible of finding explanations at this level.

The AI bases itself (and its answers are fully) on the natural world view, as if it would tap into all existing encyclopedias, and provide answers. The result is a bit disturbing because the metaphysic is "pure mechanistic human affairs", exclusively. The result is a bit odd for a C forum reader ^^

In the end it appears to be a bit impractical - there is like a wall of some sort, especially at the level of the conclusion drawn. It says all the time "and so, the answer to the question is partially correct, because".

An other point is the Greek influence. I have been studying it a bit more deeply, and it appears that Greeks were basing themselves on the principle of "the 4 elements" - before they constituted all their "systems". Such principle affected the creation of many of their "discoveries"; those had to remain metaphysic-free, for their elaboration, but Greeks already had a "tainter".

The Western emphasis on individualism—prioritizing personal autonomy, rights, and self-expression—does indeed trace back to the ancient Greek intellectual tradition, which celebrated individual reason, debate, and achievement through figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This was later amplified during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, where thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau built on ideas of individual liberty and natural rights.

The problem here is that it's not a positive evolution, as suggested by the AI. This accounts for the developping of virtues, but it appears that the Greek heritage was a huge restriction (some negative funnelling) in all sciences & philosophies.

Well, pretty interesting in any case. The individualistic trend may be an offshoot of the Greeks. Can track some things down to it. The collectivist trend would then be a reaction to it - or, the Greeks ruined a stable collectivist order!

 

[T.C.]

It sounds like you had an assumption and the purpose of the thread was to confirm it: that the political differences between east and west are reflections of STS and STO.

In the end it appears to be a bit impractical - there is like a wall of some sort

The wall may well be your own assumptions standing between you and an understanding of something that is quite mechanical, mundane and explainable through a study of history, philosophy and politics.

An other point is the Greek influence. I have been studying it a bit more deeply, and it appears that Greeks were basing themselves on the principle of "the 4 elements" - before they constituted all their "systems". Such principle affected the creation of many of their "discoveries"; those had to remain metaphysic-free, for their elaboration, but Greeks already had a "tainter".

Most philosophical systems involve a metaphysical theory from which implications for ethics and epistemology are based or married up with. You criticise the ancient Greeks for basing their philosophical systems in the best metaphysical theory they could come up with at the time.

And yet, at the same time, the STS/STO framework and theory of densities is itself a metaphysical model from which we on this forum derive an ethical system (service to others vs service to self) and a theory of epistemology (levels of awareness through different densities). And you are attempting to use this metaphysical theory to interpret reality, too! You have your own ‘tainter’.

So don’t give the Greeks too much of a hard time.

The collectivist trend would then be a reaction to it - or, the Greeks ruined a stable collectivist order!

It’s not a ‘reaction to’. I asked in my prompts, and grok spoke a lot too, about Confucianism. This, in my opinion, is a significant root and origin of Eastern collectivism (as well as the Rice Theory and other points made by Grok). And it’s still very prevalent in Chinese culture and society to this day. Children in China learn the sayings and values of Confucius in their schooling.

 

[axj]

Forum member @axj said, too, something along those lines - but I cannot fathom that the East would adopt Capitalism, especially after a century driven by a monolithic ideological ground.

I am originally from the USSR and can tell you from experience that the communist ideology was far from monolithic there in the 1980s. Communism or central planning was seen as a failure and all of Eastern Europe (and to a large degree even China) abandoned it in favor of "what works", namely capitalism and free markets.

Russia would be headed for different waters - but everything except "Capitalism". I believe that given the West's attitude, too, most Eastern countries are rather laughing at "Capitalism" as a viable way for things.

Russia and China are very skeptical about Western 'democracy', which is not the same as capitalism.