Wildfire Collection: Thirty Years Anniversary Edition

Chapter 4 Preface to the 30-Year Commemorative Edition of Wildfire (4)
Then Karl Popper's speech in [-] took on new meaning for me:
…institutions, when not backed by tradition, often backfire.For example, the opposition party in parliament is supposed to prevent the majority party from stealing taxpayers' money, but I remember an example from a southeastern European country: where the opposition party and the majority party shared the spoils.All in all, it must be traditional culture that can link institutions and individual expectations.

Obviously, we Taiwanese are not the only ones who share the spoils between the opposition party and the majority party.However, the traditional culture that Pope has always emphasized—the traditional culture that makes the democratic system feasible, is not a force that can supplement the democratic system in Taiwan's historical environment, but an obstacle that must be overcome.Political commentators have criticized Lee Teng-hui for being arbitrary, but isn't his arbitraryism nurtured by the obedience of his people?How many clues of traditional culture are mixed in these people's obedience to their master?
The dictatorship is gone, but the party chairman is still arbitrary, and the parliament is still "self-sufficient". At this time, the clouds disappear, and the crux of the problem is exposed: it is culture, not politics.

What does culture mean?It is nothing more than the embodiment of individual values ​​and behaviors in a group.After ten years of turmoil, what I discovered was: as long as there is a temptation of power, anyone can fall.This includes, of course, or especially, the idealistic heroes of the [-]s.

The central belief of "Wildfire": "The more fundamental problem than the system lies in the individual." Is it wrong?

Liberation is a process
When the totalitarian system collapses, what else oppresses the individual?Liberate from what, claim rights to what?In the [-]s, none of this was a problem.Individuals face a powerful system, like a thin David looking up to a giant.Only after the giant fell did David face himself and his companions in awe.

The opinions of the partners are called "public opinion".In the [-]s, public opinion dominated society with an overwhelming momentum, shaping new value standards through newspapers, magazines, radio and television, and "political correctness" is a well-tailored suit for it.Yu Youren's bronze statue was removed and replaced with vulgar dazzling lanterns; but no one dared to stand up and say that the dazzling lanterns were vulgar, while Yu Youren's calligraphy and educational ideas of the year were worthy of respect.The lanterns represent the emerging masses, no matter how vulgar and ugly they are; the bronze statue of Yu Youren represents the old order of the Kuomintang to be overthrown, no matter whether it has more profound meaning or not.Opposing public opinion is anti-democracy.

But when public opinion was in power, some people actually said:
Individual individuals get lost in groups.In politics, public opinion rules the world.The only people who have power are the masses and the government whose purpose is to carry out the wishes and intuitions of the masses. In the field of morality, human relations, and public policy, the same is true. ...this mass does not seek their opinion from their ... elites or from books; their opinion comes from their own kind, hastily formed in the name of the mass through the newspapers.

In other words, public opinion may deteriorate into a kind of violence of the majority and mediocrity, restricting the development of individuals, so——

When the public opinion formed by mediocrity is becoming more and more mainstream in society, to check and balance this trend, more top-thinking individuals must come forward... The more mavericks in a society, the more talented, talented, More moral courage.

That is to say, individuals should be liberated from the strong bondage of public opinion, and fight for the right to be different from the mediocre rule of public opinion.After the disintegration of totalitarianism, what oppresses individuals is the collective of countless individuals, "public opinion."

The person who said this was not some vicissitudes hero in the [-]s, but the British political philosopher Miller, who wrote in his classic "On Liberty" and published it in [-].

In [-], he warned the British compatriots: If the British people of the Victorian Dynasty did not resist the dictatorship of public opinion and did not encourage the independent development of individuals, then their most tragic end would be to become another China, [-] Years of stagnant China.The reason why China has stagnated is because that country only knows the unity of the group, but does not know the importance of the individual surpassing the group.

No, short-sighted and limited experience.In the 130s, I didn't think about it at all, or I didn't have time to think about the questions raised by Mueller Jr. 70 years ago.Now, I have begun to have a new understanding of Yan Fu's uneasiness about the infinite expansion of "freedom" expressed in Yan Fu's translation of "On Liberty" into "On the Right of the Group and Self".What Liang Qichao said [-] years ago surprised me even more:

... It's not just the arbitrariness of warlords and chaebols, which is hateful and hateful, but also the alliance resistance of trade unions and even social revolution, it's not just a kind of power effect!However, in the past, the power was in the hands of the minority, and in the future, the power will be in the hands of the majority.

Could it be that liberation is a never-ending process?Could it be that, as stated before, liberation is not equal to freedom, because after obtaining a certain kind of freedom, there will inevitably be another kind of unfreedom, requiring a further level of liberation?So I thought of the "background justification" proposed by the philosopher Dworkin.What rights to fight for depends on the local "background" at that time as the "justification".For example, the organization and legal principles of modern Western society are mostly formed according to utilitarianism, so the so-called fighting for rights in this society is fighting for the right to oppose utilitarianism.In another time and space, what rights to fight for depends on what the "background rationale" is at that time.

The "background rationale" in the [-]s was the one-party dictatorship of the Kuomintang. The right we pursue is to oppose the one-party dictatorship and replace the dictatorship with public opinion.The "background rationale" in the [-]s was different. It became the ubiquity of superficial public opinion.The rights that must be fought for in the [-]s have become how to discern the truth of public opinion, how to protect minorities from infringement and corruption, and how to guarantee freedom in the true sense.

In comparison, although the "struggle" in the [-]s risked imprisonment, people's mood was confident and relaxed.The totalitarian system is such a big goal that it only takes some heroism to defeat it.The [-]s seemed mediocre and quiet, but people were terrified. First of all, they couldn't tell who the enemy was.In the [-]s, the Kuomintang could be blamed for corruption, fires and floods that killed people; in the [-]s, collusion between government and businessmen, gangsters ran rampant, and fires and floods killed people, but who should be blamed?The government is formed by the votes of the petty bourgeoisie; and if anything is to be brought down, it is the petty bourgeois' own weaknesses that should be brought down most of all.When the political responsibility is transferred from the dictatorship to the shoulders of the individual, the individual suddenly discovers the weakness of his constitution.

from the dark
Of course, it is not just the Taiwanese who have found themselves physically weak after the lifting of martial law.Germans through the Nazis and the KPD have discovered time and time again how easily state power can eat individuals, and the crisis of freedom is still discussed today.After the disintegration, the Russians and Eastern Europeans saw the old authority collapse and the new order could not be established, and the predatory principle of the jungle prevailed.There are only a few countries in the world such as Britain, France, and the United States with relatively strong personal physique, and they have spent more than 200 years cultivating personal physique.

An individual, when he is a dissenter, is a holy hero if he is not hunted down.When he is no longer an opponent, the harsh test comes: whether he can resist the corruption of power, whether he can take responsibility, and whether he can tolerate dissent.Many facts show that the heroes who broke the autocracy were actually countless autocratic individuals.The individual is the real source of darkness.

The quiet revolution that took place in Taiwan in [-] was not a revolution of any party, but a real movement of the whole people, and the people claimed their power back.In the long history of China, this is the first time that a thunderbolt comes from the blue sky. It can't help but make people hold their breath and want to see clearly: this people is being tested, can he use power with caution?Can he take responsibility?Can he tolerate dissent?

No idea, the quiz is in progress.But when I think about it, in 80.00, both Jiang Tingfu and Ding Wenjiang firmly believed that "democracy is far beyond dictatorship in China today", one of the reasons is that "75% of the people in the Republic of China or [-] and above are illiterate", I understand how high a standard we are using to demand and measure the people of Taiwan.Although the road of half a century has been tortuous, it has not been in vain.

If it is said that the heavy burden on the individual's shoulders makes people unsteady and uneasy, or that the individual who came out of the disinfection and isolation ward is now facing the invasion of various germs and maladaptive, is he willing to return to the original safe and controlled disinfection? Living in the room?
I met a talkative taxi driver who began to criticize the government and financial groups from Heping East Road all the way to the Grand Hotel. "Then," I asked him when I got out of the car, "it's better for the Chiang family regime, you put it that way."

He shook his head vigorously, "Of course not. The previous privilege was legalized and institutionalized, and the legal system was so legal that you didn't even know it was a privilege. Now it's an individual behavior, and you know it's illegal. The difference is huge."

The driver speaks with confidence.

Hu Shih said in the [-]s that one must enter the water before learning to swim; confident drivers believed that one had to leave the sterile ward to build up one's immunity.Liberalism is not liberalism, only testing is the only truth.

dream bright
Walking through the [-]s in Taiwan, one cannot but be a thorough individualist, continuing to dream of the light and facing the deepest darkness of the individual.don't blink.

Originally published in "Hurricane [-]" (published by Times Times, [-])
[1] "The Spirit of Prague", by Ivan Kerima, Times Publishing Company, [-], p. [-].

[2] "Prague Spirit", by Ivan Kerima, Times Publishing Company, [-], p.[-].

[3] "Prague Spirit", by Ivan Kerima, Times Publishing Company, [-], p.[-].

(End of this chapter)