(1923.1)
There is a great current in modern times which pervades all aspects of social life: politics, society, industry, education, fine arts, literature, customs, even clothes, decorations, etc., and there is nothing without his color. What is it? It is the "populism" that has swept the world.
"Populism", which arose in Europe and was lost to the Americas, has recently used the power of machine guns, ships, news, and telegraphs to awaken Asia, which has been sleeping in the abyss of despotism for thousands of years. He was in the present world, the spirit of the times, the only authority, as was the medieval Romanism in Europe at that time. The belief in "populism" in the present day is also the belief in religion in the Middle Europeans. Whether he is an emperor, a religious lord, a nobleman, a warlord, a landlord, or a capitalist, if he stands in his way, he will sweep them away. Whether it is literature, opera, poetry, slogans, if they do not lead to the banner of populism, they must not be spread in the present society, and they must not be praised by the masses. What we see every day is the banner of victory of "populism", and what we hear and hear is the triumphant song of "populism", following his rise and rebelling against his demise. All the spirit of progress is imagined to be moving towards "populism." The present populism is a temperament, a spiritual custom, a grand view of life; not only a concrete political system, but also an abstract philosophy of life; not only a product of pure understanding, but also deeply stained with the colors of feelings, impulses, and desires. If we want to limit its flight to the cage of a narrow solipsist formula, we cannot get a legitimate concept of "populism." The poetic populist wanted to fly in the sun, to fight shelley and whitman.
"Populism" is a translation of democracy: some are translated as "civilism", some are translated as "democratic", some are translated as "civil rule", some are translated as "populism", and some are transliterated as "Democrussi". People's humanism is the japanese translation, because their national system is still monarch, so it is translated as "people's book" to avoid the term "democracy" so as not to contradict their national system. Democracy is also appropriate in politics, because it can show a distinction between monarchy and aristocratic politics, but a popular politics. But to use him to express his tendency to express life in the economic, artistic, literary, and other social circles would be to think that his political implications were too heavy, and the scope of his expression was to narrow the original content. Civil rule is consistent with the etymological reality of democracy. According to the Greek demos, righteousness is equivalent to "people", kratia is equivalent to "rule or government", and demo kratia, i.e., democracy, is equivalent to "people's rule or popular government". It was also coined in the time of the ancient Greek and Athenian statesman Pericles (born 495 BC and died 429 BC). At that time, people felt the need to establish a new term for the new ideal, but it was also opposed by the suspects, and later this term was established. However, in aristotle's time, scholars used it differently, and the interpretation was different, for example, there were three kinds of Sub-governments: first, monarchy, second, aristocracy, and third, democratic politics (polity). Each of these three forms of government has its own variations: a variant of monarchy, tyranny; a variant of aristocratic politics, oligarchy; a variant of democratic politics, democracy. It is the Zhiya interpretation that democracy is not interpreted as democratic politics, but as mob politics; Yashi shows that democratic politics does not use democracy, but polycy. Polybius uses the term democracy to take the polycy of Adama. Later, it was used for a long time, and finally expressed the meaning of "rule by the people". But this kind of political system, which has evolved to this day, has changed a lot, and the original meaning of "rule" has ceased to exist, and a new meaning has been born. This is exactly the same as the change in the meaning of the word "government." The meaning of "politics" is far from the past and the present, and in ancient times the use of this word contained the meaning of coercion or coercion of others to do what they did not want to do, but now there is no meaning of dividing the people as the ruling class and the subordination class. The term "self-government" is the opposite of the ancient meaning of politics. Modern democratic politics no longer has the meaning of ruling, because "rule" is governed by one person or part of the people and the rest as the ruled; one is ruled, one is ruled, one is ruled, one is obeyed; such a relationship is not allowed by modern populism. Therefore, the translation of "civil rule doctrine" is not very comfortable today. Yu is like "populism", "populism" and the transliteration of "Democrussi", and there are few places where the original meaning is lost. Now for the sake of popular understanding, it is translated as "populism".
The political ideal of "populism" was expressed in ancient Greece by Aristotle and Plato in their ideal municipal state. The free state of the modern world, that is, the original municipal state degenerated. In such countries, where every citizen has an opportunity to participate in the life of the municipal state, there is no conflict between the individual and the state, for man is a political animal, and in such a state he is able to manifest himself in the political whole. The political whole is incomplete, there is no complete person, and when the municipal government is complete, it means that citizenship is complete. In order for the citizens to know that he has his duties in the municipality, education and training are of great importance. Yashi divides politics into two categories: one is the politics that is in harmony with the life of the municipal government, and the other is the politics that is imposed on the municipal government by force. In the former, the official is no different from the citizen, and can often defend his position as a conscious element in the political body, looking for various ways to serve the country, and has no intention of deviating from the interests of the municipal government. In such a state, the political body consists of the whole of the people, not a part of the people, and the ruler is also a subordinate of the people. In the latter, officials often differed from the commoners, used their official positions as self-imposed assets, and all government affairs were handled by force. The division of citizens into the ruling and subordinate levels, and the relationship between force and force, so that the people and officials are full of evil feelings, which promotes the enemy country. In such countries, the ruler gives orders and does whatever he wants, while the subordinates are forced to obey orders by force. Modern "populism" is mostly in line with the ideals of the Asian and Persian peoples; and the situation of its development is still in the ascendant. There is no country in Uchi that does not do its best to become "populist" because of the shape of his national form of government. The "populist" political system does not have a certain form, and the system that can be implemented is not limited to a specific type of country or nation. The people have the consciousness of a modern citizen, and there is nothing that does not make a strong demand for "populism", and there is no one who cannot advance towards the positive situation of "populism" in the course reached by his people's hostages. Democratic country, needless to say. Norwich was originally a monarchy, and it was also tainted with the new color of populism. Switzerland's "Kang Tong", which was originally an oligarchy, a small number of rulers and rich people who opposed the people, were also defeated by the blows of populism. Japan was originally a founding father,000, but today it is only fearful of populist arrogance that it is in danger. During the European War and beyond, Russia under the dictatorship became a Federal Republic of the Labor-Peasant Soviets. Germany, Austria, and Hungary have also become democratic republics. In the area around Central Europe, many democratic new countries have also been established. It can be seen that in the politics of "populism" practiced in various countries today, there is only the question of the degree of the degree, and there is no problem of the impossible and the impossible. The true spirit of this politics is nothing more than that of all the elements of the political body who seek the opportunity to exercise themselves in public life with their special abilities: under the decrees of the state, freedom to keep its own standards, self-advancement to fulfill its duties; opportunities for equal development, to the purpose of public welfare; officials and citizens, all of whom are the ones who govern the affairs of the state; everyone is a ruler, everyone is not subordinate, and there is no class in between. The so-called ruler here means to govern the affairs, and does not contain the meaning of governing people. The state has an interesting relationship with the people, there is no strong relationship; but there is the observance of the conventions, there is no coercive subjugation, and the government is nothing more than a tool for citizens to realize their political affairs. T.g. Masaryk said that the political and social purpose of "populism" was to abolish the relationship between subordination and domination. The original meaning of the term "populism" is "people's rule", but the purpose of modern "populism" is no longer to rule but to belong to the people, to the people, and to the people. How this new concept and new plan of the State Organization can be implemented is not only a matter of power, but a difficult question of implementing technology. These few words that explain modern civilian politics can well tell his essence. It can be seen that the power of things has lost all its usefulness in today's politics. Except for the necessity of using him in the revolutionary period to suppress the opposition to the revolutionaries, the use of force in peacetime is sufficient as a sign of political decadence.
Some say that "government by majority" means "populist politics." There is no politics of any kind that is not based on force. Under civilian politics, the majority is not a coercive relationship between the minority. Wilson had this argument. "Government is limited to power and power," he said. Regardless of the form of government, the characteristics of government are nothing more than power. One side has the ruler, the other side has the ruled. The power of the ruler, either directly or indirectly, is to be attributed to force. In a nutshell, the government is the power of the organization. But the strength of the organization is not necessary by the force of the organization, but in fact the will of several people or the whole society is expressed in the organization to carry out its inherent purposes and to deal with public affairs. ...... Strength doesn't have to be shape. Force is the backing of power, but it is elusive. It is not a superficial fact that power rests on the ruler, but power stops at strength. In other words, the form of force is not necessary. So there was a kind of government, his power, which was never in the form of force. That is, in all countries of this world, the use of political machinery is mostly silent, and there is no suppression of the people's affairs. In other words, it is a form that does not rely on force. However, the implicit manifestation of force has nothing to do with the weight of its weight; the good government of the modern world does not depend on the force of the ruler, but on the "free consent" of the governed. This is that the government takes the Constitution and the law as its model, and the Constitution and the law take the social habits as the source. The strength that is contained in this is not the strength of an autocracy, not the power of a few tyrannical forces, but the strength of the majority. The people all know the greatness of this power, and they do not dare to violate it, so its power is latent and useless. The power of the elected officials compared with the absolute monarchs is not superior or inferior, and the strength of the President of the United States is greater than that of the Russian Emperor before the revolution. The fundamental difference between the two is all implicit. Just like wrist strength, A uses him as a backup and B uses him as a forward guard, and there is no difference between the situation and the force. "According to this, the strength organized by Wei Wei's cloud refers to the strength of the majority of people. We ask here whether the composition of such force includes the so-called "free approval" of the governed. Or can this so-called "free approval" of the governed be subject to such a strong coercion, or knowing the greatness of such a force, and therefore not daring to violate it, can it happen? I think that if the cloud is "freely recognized", it will not be forced; if there is a strong coercion, it will not allow "free approval" to occur. As far as the motive of "free approval" is more or less due to one's own self-control and self-sacrifice, it is also within the scope of freedom, and has nothing to do with the strength of self-control. Mencius said, "He who obeys with strength is not obedient to his heart, nor is he able to support himself." Those who are not convinced, that is, do not give birth to "free approval." Everything that can be "freely approved" by man, and can be called a person who is convinced, must not be a powerful effect of the outside. The relationship of obedience, if judged by the existence of force, is passive, not free; it can be said to be subjugated, not obeyed: the things of obedience, because of force; the things of obedience, because of will; the things of passivity, the things of self-control; the things of freedom, the self of the Lord. Once the force of man's initiative to exert pressure on himself is destroyed, in other words, once the resistance of the unconvincing person is sufficient, the relationship of obedience will disappear with it. If this kind of force can only occur after the "free approval" of the so-called governed person is expressed, then this kind of force is not the strength of the majority, but the national will of the majority and the minority. This great force is really the force of the "free approval" of the whole people, and the "free approval" of the whole people is by no means the result of this great force oppression. I have tried to say that "majority politics" is not necessarily the politics of perfection "populism", and that "free government" can really be consistent with the spirit of "populism". The essence of "liberal politics" is not to force the minority by the majority, but to make a problem arise, so that when a problem arises, everyone can have a free and fair attitude, for full discussion, detailed discussion, and seek a common approval. The discussion was carried out to the extent of exhaustion, and the results were verified by the method of majority voting. In deliberation and discussion, the majority should have the spirit of accommodating the opinions of the minority; after voting according to law, the minority should have the morality to obey the resolution of the whole. The true meaning of "liberal politics" is not the strength of the majority, but the approval of the common people. Depending on the majority is just a way of expressing common acceptance. From autocracy to "populism", the majority vote is exactly the method of replacing it with the rule of relying on the force. There is a European and American proverb: "It is better to count the head than to break the head." ”（it is better to count heads than to break heads． This is exactly what this is true. Wilshire also said: "In this world, it is often said that 'the politics of public opinion' and 'the politics of the people's voice', these terms may be appropriate in describing the developed and perfect politics of the common people, but today, the majority of public opinion is intimidated by the victory, not in the minority, but in the minority. In other words, the majority excludes the minority, not using their many voices, but relying on their many forces. This is a very clear fact, and it cannot be denied. The majority is able to rule, not because their wisdom enables them to do so, but because their power enables them to do so. The majority party wants to put their opinions into practice, and the power they need is no different from that of an autocratic monarch who oppresses his people. "We can refute the fact that the civilian politics of the so-called free countries today has not yet reached the full state of development, and it must not be concluded from this that the basis of true populist politics is also the strength of the majority. If civilian politics is also placed under the "law of force," the political image presented will be as John Stuart mill put it: "Although there is democracy, the people who exercise power are not the same as the people added to the power." Its so-called autonomists do not govern themselves by themselves, but each treats one person and receives the rest. The so-called likes and dislikes of the people, not the likes and dislikes of the nation, are the likes and dislikes of the most numerous of them. And the so-called largest number does not have to be the largest number, or the real is too little to receive more. Between the people, the parties use their robbery. And then knowing that the theory of restricting the right to govern is indispensable to those who are not bound to this group, they are no different from other groups. The people are governed by the crowd, and all the power is gathered, that is, it cannot be unlimited, and it does not matter whether its power comes from one person or from the Tai Banye of its people. Otherwise, tai half is arrogant and violent, and it is no different from an authoritarian person. "The tyranny of Fu Tai's half is that of a different person, and if the group is united, it inherently hijacks the real power of the call, such as the edict of the king." Those who pretend to be so-called edicts abandon what they are and do not follow the wrong, and those who abuse their wrong questions are violent, and the arbitrariness of the often school dictatorship is particularly cool. Why? The arbitrariness of the dictatorship is obviously traceable; the violence of the solo half is invisible, and the one who is surrounded by the state has no escape from the snow, and it is the deepest in the voice of my voice. Its power is not to bind the soul, so that it will eventually become a slave to the world. "(Strict translation) The politics of coercion, whether it is only one person or the majority, cannot suppress the will of the minority, and the result is still the resistance of the strong force, and the search for each other is no longer the same." Populist politics, by no means. Modern "populism" is no longer "to the people, for the people, by the people" but "to the people, for the people, by the people", (administration of the people, for the people, by the people) is not the rule of man, but the management of things. If we want to achieve "populism", we do not have to study how to gain power, but we must study how we can learn the techniques of managing things.
Movements in modern politics or society are movements of liberation. The people demand liberation for the state, the localities for the central government, the colonies for the nationality, the weak and small nations for the strong, the peasants for the landlords, the workers for the capitalists, the women for the men, and the children for the relatives. These liberation movements are populist movements.
With the movement of liberation, the old organization cannot but be destroyed, and the new organization cannot be left uncreated. Human feelings are mostly bound by habits and inertia, and often only see the destruction of the old, and cannot see the new creations, so I feel that these liberation movements are all phenomena of division. When we see the liberation movement in the country where there are people, we say that the state power is divided; when we see the liberation movement of the peasants and workers in the economic circles, we say that the economic organization is divided; when we see the liberation movement of women or children in the family in society, we say that society is divided, the family is divided: When we see these phenomena of division, they are all gathered together in one era, and all the utensils and customs made in this era are tinged with the color of division, and we say that the present era is an era of division. Isn't it a split to see the flag change from one yellow to five colors? Isn't the passage of Beijing's Zhengyang Gate changing from one to several a phenomenon of division? Looking at the popular women's buns, girls' braids, most of them change from odd numbers to even numbers, is not it a phenomenon of division? China has two parliaments, two governments, Russia is divided into several countries, Germany, Austria, Hungary and the small nations in Central Europe have declared their independence, Ireland and India's autonomy movements against Britain, and Korea's independence movements against Japan are not all separatist phenomena? For more than a decade, there have been two things that the Chinese people have feared the most: one is "populism" and the other is federalism. The state system has changed from monarchy to democracy, and everyone is slightly at ease with "populism". To this day, this federalism of independence is still a little frightening to mention, and this civil war over the autonomy of the united provinces is still on the verge of breaking out at any time. As for the literati and politicians, it is not that the federation must be first stated and then the country, that is, China has long been reunified; it is not that I advocate autonomy and avoid the word federal, or that I am only talking about doctrine and do not involve Chinese facts. Pushing the source, the average person is afraid of his reasons, they are all misidentified that he is a split phenomenon, so avoid this term and do not talk about it, are afraid that people will mistakenly recognize this as a split alias.
In fact, these people have only seen half of them, not all of them. At present, the trajectory of the evolution of the world is to follow a line, which is the thoroughfare for reaching the unity of the world, and the vein of the common spiritual unity of mankind. "Populism", federalism, are all marks on this line. Without a federal organization, the populist politics on a large scale will not succeed. With the organization of the Federation, the politics of the common people at that time was like having a teacher. Because civilian politics and federalism have a consistent origin and an inseparable relationship. The origin of this line is the liberation of individuality. The emancipation of individuality is not just a matter of seeking a split, but to complete all individuality, to break away from the old stumbling blocks, and to re-transform an ordinary and vast new organization. On the one hand, it is the liberation of individuality, and on the other hand, it is the unity of the people. This movement of sexual liberation is accompanied by a movement of unity. These two movements, which seem to be opposites, are really mutually exclusive. For example, China's national flag, one color split into five colors, although it can be said that he is divided, but these five colors are arranged on a national flag, very orderly, representing the Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui, Tibetan five ethnic groups, has become a new organization, can also be said to be a union. The passages of Beijing's Zhengyang Gate have become fewer and more numerous, and the women's buns and girls' braids have become strange and even, on the one hand, they can be said to be divided, and on the other hand, they are connected into a new organization and a new form, adapting to this new life, expressing the characteristics of the spirit of the times, and giving play to the beauty of the times. The division of China's overall situation, the south one congress, the north one congress, the south one government, the north one government. When this society was fundamentally transformed in Russia, a to-to-peasant Soviet republic was formed here and a to-peasant soviet republic was formed there, and for a time there was also a phenomenon of fragmentation. Austria, Hungary, And Germany are all like this: on the one hand, it seems to be divided, and on the other hand, it is transforming a new organization. This new organization is a new union. The content of this new union is even more enlarged and enriched than the old organization before, because the various lives of the individual, society, the state, the nation, and the world are constantly taking place new demands, which can never be adapted to or satisfied by the old forms of the old organization. In the future, the five major ethnic groups of China, Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui, and Tibetan, will not be able to subordinate the other four ethnic groups to that clan; if beijing's Zhengyang Gate remains only one road as usual, those cars and horses that come and go incessantly, and the conflicts and confusion will be absolutely intolerable. The world is full of communication, the relationship between life, which is becoming more and more complicated every day, the freedom of personality and the unity of the same, are indispensable in the new order of the new life. Federalism is compatible with both. Because the local, national, national, and social units, like the individuals, have their own personalities, federalism can keep their individual freedom from being violated by others. The local, national, national, and social units, like the human worlds, have their commonalities, and federalism can fulfill their commonalities, form equal organizations, ensure the principle of compatibility, and achieve their goal of mutual assistance. The boundaries between the freedom of this nature and the mutual assistance of the commonality are based on the necessity of adapting to their lives.
In this view, federalism is not only not the seed of division, but also the new organization most suitable for compounding, expanding, differentiating, and refuting the relations of life. Many countries and nationalities, because of their different feelings, hobbies, languages, and religions, have caused many disputes over the years, and once federalism is practiced, the old hatred and hatred can be easily dispelled. Since the transformation of the republic in China, the conflict between the North and the South has always been incessant; the provinces have refused to obey the central government, and in my opinion, non-federalism cannot create a new union. A territory as large as Russia's, such a mixed nation, is indispensable to federalism if it wants to create a new union and a new organization. Sure enough, this new Russian social Federative Soviet Republic is also a federal organization. A federal republic such as that of Russia is a free association of the Russian tribes from the working peoples of all races. He was very different from the Confederation of England and the Confederation of Switzerland. The Russian Federal Soviet Republic is a social republic organized by the Russian ministries of laborers and peasants, and if the parts of the Soviet union of the laborers and peasants want to separate from each other, no one can prevent them from doing so. But the British Federation was maintained by force. Britain still has some subjugated relations with the people of Africa, Asia, Australia and the Buroans. Even in Ireland's self-government movement, Sinn Fein had spent years struggling to get rid of half of Britain's shackles. The British capitalists still boast that we have a federation, the United Nations of all nations. But whenever the people of this Commonwealth want to leave the oppression of Britain, the middle class society of Britain will recruit them by force. This is evident in the past for the United States, and more recently for Ireland and India. The commonwealth organization of England will inevitably change in the future. The Federal Republic of Switzerland is a union of many "cantons". But this alliance is also based on troop strength. The Swiss "Kang Tong", who wants to break away from Switzerland, will be attacked by the Swiss Republican Army. After the end of the War, Austria and Hungary were also changed to democratic federations. The German Confederation, which was originally organized by several monarchs, was not called a pure commonwealth. After this revolution, a total of 27,88 members of the monarchical and imperial families were expelled, one by one. The hegemony of Prussia was also completely destroyed, and it became a truly democratic federation. We can assert that the present world is a federal world and a world of "populism"; the future world organization will also be a federal organization, a "populist" organization. Federalism is just another form of "populism."
In ancient times, people fought with each other, and it was the same as the struggle between countries today. After the traffic became more and more complicated, everyone knew that it was not the road of life to compete for a long time, so there was a crowd organization. Today, international relations are getting more and more every day, and you fight for each other, often resulting in a big war, killing people without counting, spending money without counting, and only then can people gradually realize that the struggle between the country and the governor of the country is not the way of life, and all kinds of internationalist movements have taken place. Modern internationalist movements can be largely divided into two categories: the internationalist movements of the middle class, such as the Anglo-Germanic Association and the Anglo-Ultraman Association, which are groups for the promotion of international friendship; such as the Hague Peace Conference, the Hague Arbitration Tribunal, the Five-Year Conference of Representatives of the New World Republic, the Peace and Freedom League, the Women's League, the Christian Union, the National Union League, the Grand League of International proposed by Wilson, and the Pacific Conference proposed by Harding this time, not for the purpose of opposing war. It is to resolve international disputes. Some people have great hopes for this internationalist movement, thinking that if there is an international group that promotes international friendship, resolves international disputes, and opposes international war, then international misunderstandings and the scourge of war can naturally be reduced by a lot. For Wilson's proposed international alliance in particular, the hope was greater, thinking that such an organization would be the initial federation of the world. Originally, the difference between the Confederacy and the Confederation was only a difference in degree, and the Confederation was a union of independent states for the sake of public defense and public interest, and the countries that joined the union still retained their own sovereignty. This joint organ depends entirely on the policies jointly agreed upon by all countries. The states of ancient Greece, later the "Kangtong" of Switzerland, the states of Germany, and the states of the United States have all practiced. A federation is a state with a coalition government, with the highest sovereignty, and its rule involves the common interests of the states in the federation, and as for matters within the realm of self-government of the states, it is still up to the states to self-determination, and the coalition government does not interfere. The United States, which adopted the Constitution of 1789, and Switzerland, which adopted the Constitution of 1848, are all like this. The Confederation of the United States was formed by the confederation of the states before 1789. The Confederacy was formed in 1643 by the union of four New England colonies. The future federation of the world, if it can be formed, must be based on this international alliance. Judging from the current situation, I am afraid that this is only a luxury. Capitalism exists for one day, imperialism exists for one day. In the midst of imperialist conflicts, all attempts to oppose war have come to naught, and all international conferences are but organs for the distribution of the rights of weak and small nations by a few powerful powers. Under imperialism, there is absolutely no room for "populism" to exist. Not a "populist" union, it is by no means a true union. One is the internationalist movement of the working class. This movement is very different from the internationalist movement of the middle class. They stand for class struggle. They do not believe and do not say that "all mankind is brothers." To speak of such a thing, one can only say, "The workers of the whole world are brothers." "The internationalism of the working class is not for peace, but for war. They all have an international enemy, the middle class. This class, when necessary, unites and declares war on the working class. Examples such as the thiers against the commune of Paris in Paris, like the bolshevik who united Germany and the Entente against Russia, are examples. In order for the working class to unite against the middle class, there must be an international union of the working class. This alliance is useful not only for the daily controversies of industry and for preventing those who have broken the strike alliance abroad, but even in times of revolution, the workers of the capitalist countries can prevent their rulers from striking at the places where the revolution succeeds. The aim of the internationalism of the working class is not to put an end to the war, but to change the scope of the war, but to make the war not for the state, but for the class. They recognize that war is not the result of malignancy, not of international misunderstanding, but of modern imperialism. This imperialism, on his basis, is economic and inseparably linked to capitalism. War will not disappear until the capitalist class ceases to exist. The international groups of the working class, the "first international", founded in 1864, gradually disappeared after the defeat of Paris Corn münle; the "second internationa", founded in 1889, ceased its existence in 1914; the "thethird internationa", founded in 1919, which is now flourishing and growing in power. The organization is also more consolidated and more integrated than the previous international solidarity, with a permanent Executive Committee. These two internationalist movements ,—— the League of Nations of the middle class and the Third International of the working class,—— and one must be the basis for the great international unity of the future. Looking at the current situation, the latter is more promising than the former.
The spirit of authoritarian imperialism is often embodied in the "pan doctrine" (pan... ism）。 He who holds this doctrine, but seeks to fulfill his own desires, and uses the force of coercion to force others to fall under his own elbows. Such situations exist between countries and states, between nations and nationalities, between localities and localities, between valve reading and valve reading, and between parties and parties. Therefore, in the world, there are the so-called "Great Europa Doctrine", the so-called "Great Americanism", and the so-called "Great Asiaticism"; within Europe, there is the so-called "Great Germanism" and the so-called "Great Slavism"; within Asia, there is also the so-called "Great Japanism"; in recent years, within China, there are also the so-called "Great Northernism" and "Great Southwestism"; under the same Northernism, there are also two or more Great So-and-So Doctrines fighting there; under the same Southwestism, There are also more than two kinds of big so-and-so doctrines that confront each other there. Judging from the results of the European War and the political situation in China, no one who holds the doctrine of a certain person, whether he is a nation, a country, a locality, a warlord, a party, or an individual, has not failed. The opposite of the great so-and-so doctrine is "populism". Therefore, the defeat of the doctrine of so-and-so is the victory of "populism." One is authoritarianism, the other is liberalism; one is Shangli, one is Shangli; one is the solitude of any kind of force, and one allows for the juxtaposition of individuals. Every individual has his realm of freedom. If there is arrogance and disregard for the freedom of others, and he infringes on him, then his enlargement is the reduction of others, his stretching is the humiliation of others, his strength is the weakness of others, and his growth is the demise of others. The good fortune of one is the misfortune of the other; the welfare of one is the misfortune of the other. The party that expands, stretches, strengthens, grows, is blessed, and is blessed, of course, but on the side that is small, humiliated, weakened, withered, afflicted, and afflicted, its infinite grievances, its infinite suffering, its long-term depression, will burst forth and seek revenge and resistance. And man's desire is great, who is not as good as me, there is a second one who holds the doctrine of greatness to fight with him, according to the principle that things cannot be two great, and those who fight and fail, there will be one in the two. Therefore, those who hold the doctrine of the great so-and-so will not be defeated by the resistance of the weak, that is, crushed by the wounds of the two great, and the result will be defeated before the "populism" and there is no doubt.
There is no real "populism" in countries where women are not liberated. The so-called free countries of modern Europe and the United States still have not reached the point of true "populism", because all their movements, legislation, speeches, and ideas are still based on men, and the interests of the half of women are indifferent. Even if someone pays a little attention to the interests of women, what that person does on their behalf is not really able to cut to the interests of the women themselves, and it is not as earnest as the women themselves. The term "people" is by no means exclusive to men, and half of the women must be included. This "people" includes, of course, women. Then the rights to which the people are entitled, of course, women enjoy the same as men. Brougham Villiers said: "Pure 'populism' is not the politics of democratic civil rights practiced by men, but the politics of democratic civil rights practiced by the people as a whole. (the formula of democracy is not governmet of the people for the people by the men but by the people) Fei solemnly affirmed that "it is not done by men" but "by the people as a whole", that is, it advocates that both sexes should have equal opportunities for political development. If society is properly transformed, these classes can be abolished, but the sexes alone are a permanent boundary that cannot be changed. Therefore, the "populism" between the sexes is tighter than anything else. Moreover, "populism" is originally a product of the matriarchal era, so populism is feminine. Later, economic changes occurred, the matriarchy gradually collapsed, and "populism" withered away. Patriarchy— a male-centered family system — followed, and absolutism arose, so authoritarianism was male. In a society, if only men have the opportunity to move, if the half of the women are closed off and the Yi are not allowed to move in society, almost excluded from the life of society, that society must be an authoritarian, rigid, violent, cold, and dry society, and there is no spirit of "populism", because the temperament of men has a tendency to be prone to despotism, and thanks to the peaceful, beautiful, and loving temperament of the half of the women, it is possible to preserve the natural equality of human temperament and to show the spirit of true "populism". All social life Chinese is a society in which men and women are oppressive except for women, and the boundaries between men and women are unusually strict. Not only men are despotic to women, but men are also despotic to men. The content of social life, cold, heartless, dry, tasteless, those spirits of peace, grace, fraternity, and benevolence, have no chance to express themselves. If we want true "populism" to be realized in China, we must first carry out a movement for women's liberation, so that women's spirit of peace, beauty, and love will have the opportunity to influence men's tyranny in all their lives. There is no "populist" society, and there is no "populist" politics.
Feminist movements around the world have a long history. However, the success of the feminist movement was the earliest in the Nordic countries. In 1901, Norwi's tax-paying women had been granted the right to vote in municipal bodies. By 1905, Norwich was independent of Sweden, and the women's movement was progressing. In 1907, Novi's tax-paying women were granted the right to vote in the Central Council. Women in Finland were granted the right to vote in local bodies from 1867 to 1906, when the local and central parliaments had the same universal right to vote as men and women. In 1910, when the Central Parliamentary Elections were held, the number of male and female voters was almost equal, with seventeen women elected, about one-tenth of male deputies. Danish women, in 1908, were granted the right to vote in local bodies. In 1915, the new Danish Constitution and women were given the right to vote and to be elected. The Constitution provides for the participation of women and men of good character who have attained the age of twenty-five. In 1918, when Denmark held parliamentary elections, a large number of women participated in the elections, and a total of nine people were elected. Women in Sweden, unmarried and paying taxes to more than certain amounts, were granted the right to vote locally in 1862. By 1909, all women of good character had the right to vote and to be elected to local authorities. In 1918, the new electoral law of the United Kingdom granted women the right to vote in the Central Council. According to the new electoral law, all men who have reached the age of twenty-one have the right to vote, while women must be at least thirty years of age and have a separate residence. In 1918, the British House of Representatives passed a "qualification women act" recognizing that women and men have the same qualifications for election to the Central Council. In December of that year, when the Central Parliamentary Elections were held, women voted very enthusiastically, and in some constituencies there were more women than men. However, there was only one Irish woman elected in tongguo, and because I was a Sinn Féin and had the crime of political revolution, although the election was invalid. Since 1883, all adult women in new zealand have been elected to the Central Council of the State. Since 1895, states in Australia have also granted women the right to vote. By 1908, women in all states had the same right to vote as men to the Central Assembly. However, most women in new Australian states have not yet been granted the right to vote, so the women's political participation movement in this place is still in full swing. From 1869 to 1917, women in nineteen states were entitled to vote, and by the first month of 1918, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed a constitutional amendment stating: "The suffrage rights of the Confederation and the states shall not be distinguished by differences between men and women." This amendment was passed by the Bundesrat in 1919 and approved by more than three-quarters of all the states of the Federation in 1920, and women in the states of the United States have the same right to vote as men. In 1918, the new Constitution of the Soviet Social Federal Republic of Russia recognized that men and women had equal rights to vote and to be elected. The new Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany of 1919 recognizes full equal rights for men and women. In the elections to the Bundestag that year, thirty-six women were elected, twenty-one of whom belonged to the Socialist Party. In 1919, women were represented in the Austrian National Constitutional Organisation. Among the Swiss "KangTong", there are also women who have been granted to the suffragette. In May 1919, the French House of Representatives also passed a bill recognizing that women and men had the same right to vote, but it was not passed by the upper house. China's Guangdong, Hunan, Zhejiang and other provinces have formulated provincial constitutions and also stipulate equal rights for men and women. Such movements, like ordinary electoral movements, are movements that progress towards "populism".
Since the founding of Tonkin Russia, political scientists have coined a new term for this new form of politics. This new term is "ergatocracy." This term, not long established, does not yet have his place in the dictionary. The creation of this new language also depended on the rich Greek origin. The Greek ergates, meaning "workers"; associated with cracy (rule), is trained as "worker's rule" (worker's rule). In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, this kind of politics does contain the meaning of rule, and it is very strict, and the power is concentrated in the central government and the rule of other classes is exercised, that is, the power of one class replaces the power of his class, and the rule of the working class replaces the minority politics of the middle class (bourgeois oligarchy). This is the class that must pass through during the revolution. With the passage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the meaning of the element (cracy) in the word ergatocracy will give birth to a vast change. The original purpose of socialism was to break the relationship between rule and subordination. Therefore, when the regulation of private ownership, which characterizes middle-class populist politics, is completely abolished until it is completely lost, and the spirit of socialism is popularized in general under the socialist system, the real "workers' politics" will naturally be realized. At that time, the management of things replaced the rule of the human body, because everyone was a worker except the old and the young. This kind of politics is the management of things that are carried out by the workers for the sake of the workers who belong to them. The so-called workers here, of course, there is no difference between men and women. With the abolition of classes, the relationship between domination and subordination is completely destroyed.
"Workers' politics" is also embodied in the spirit of "populism". Therefore, some people say that this "workers' politics" is pure "populism", pure "populism", and real "populism". In his speech at the Congress of the Third International in Moscow on April 15, 1919, nikolai lenin also tried to distinguish between the "bourgeois democracy" of the middle class and the "proletarian" of the proletariat. Later, in his "State and Revolution" and other works, he repeatedly praised the "populism" of the proletariat. It can be seen that "workers' politics" is also essentially a kind of "populism". Communist political scientists, therefore, must make a new name because the term "populism" has been used badly in the capitalist era, has been tarnished by despicable use. It is the meaning of "the new bather will play the crown, and the new bather will vibrate the clothes". Bohun advised his comrades: "Stop saying 'populism.'" Do you think you're populists? But you are not. Do you want 'populism'? But you don't want it. You are workers' politics, and you want workers' politics. 'Populism' is the method of the tattered period of capitalism, a term tarnished by despicable use. Leave the term 'populism' for the unbelievers among the liberal middle class and socialists. Your aim is workers' politics. These few words can show their attitude. Their reasons for avoiding the term "populism" can be demonstrated.
To sum up a few words, pure "populism" means to completely break down all the privileged classes in politics, economy and society, so that the whole people are people who do useful work for the social state, and there is no need to use political organs to rule the human body, and political organs are only tools for the management of affairs that belong to all the people and are carried out by all the people. Whoever has a personality, whether he is a group, a region, a nation, or an individual, has a realm of his freedom, free from external encroachment and interference, with no relationship of domination or subordination at all, only a relationship of free association. Such a society is a society of the common people; in such a society of the common people, there are free and equal individuals.
In January 1923, the 15th kind of "Encyclopedia Small Series" was published by the Commercial Press
Signature: Li Shouchang
![Li Dazhao bravely and righteously at the age of 38, leaving 5 children, what is their fate?[fig]]()