The Inevitable Road to Serfdom: Why Managed Equality Fails and Leads to Tyranny

The dream of a perfectly equitable society—whether pursued through the revolutionary fervor of Communism or the gradualist "Fabian" approach of social democracy—ultimately collides with a singular, immovable wall: human nature. While movements like the Fabians or Social Democrats believe they can steer society toward fairness through central planning and "local efficiency," history warns that removing individual agency is the first step toward totalitarianism.

The Paradox of Central Planning

Modern socialist thought often mirrors the management error of "100% utilization." Just as an organization that optimizes every second of a secretary’s day loses the "slack" needed for innovation, a state that attempts to optimize all resources loses the "slack" required for freedom.

As Margaret Thatcher famously argued, once the state begins to direct the economy to achieve social justice, it must inevitably suppress dissent. To ensure a central plan works, the planners cannot allow individuals to "change lanes" or deviate from the script. This is why Thatcher maintained that socialism leads to a dictatorship; when the government controls the means of subsistence, it gains the power of life and death over its citizens.

The Lessons of the Communist World

The rise of Communism was a reaction to the industrial revolution's excesses. However, the transition from theory to practice revealed a fatal flaw: a total misjudgment of human nature.

• Lenin established the principle that "party discipline is higher than democracy and human rights," justifying any means to reach a political end.

• Stalin weaponized this through "The Great Purge," using terror and thought control to consolidate an absolute one-party dictatorship.

• Mao Zedong institutionalized class struggle, leading to political movements like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions and the destruction of social ethics.

Why Gradualism Fails: The "New Class"

Even in non-revolutionary socialist models, a fundamental corruption occurs. Milovan Djilas, known as the "Prophet in the Communist World," observed that once these systems succeed, they inevitably birth a "New Class". This bureaucracy becomes more oppressive and corrupt than the capitalists they replaced.

When we sacrifice "Slack in Control"—the right of the individual to choose their own path—for the sake of state-mandated efficiency, we lose the very innovation and responsiveness that keep a society alive. A society forced to be "busy" following a central plan is a society merely repeating yesterday’s mistakes, eventually collapsing under the weight of its own rigidity.

The Evolution of Servility: Ranking the 25 Human Archetypes by Complexity

 

The Evolution of Servility: Ranking the 25 Human Archetypes by Complexity

Liu Zaifu’s archetypes provide a roadmap of human degradation. When rearranged from simplistic (primitive/instinctual) to complex (intellectual/strategic), we see how a society moves from biological existence to a sophisticated web of manipulation and survival.

I. The Simplified Ranking (From Primitive to Complex)

1. Level 1: The Instinctual (Biological)

   • Types: Flesh Man, Animal Man, Idle Man.

   • Value: Minimal. They are mere consumers. In a functioning society, they provide labor (Animal Man) but offer no spiritual or intellectual advancement.

2. Level 2: The Reactive (Emotional/Physical)

   • Types: Fierce Man, Reckless Man, Enduring Man, Infatuated Man, Eccentric Man.

   • Value: Destructive or neutral. They react to the world with raw emotion or fear. They create chaos or suffer in silence.

3. Level 3: The Social Tools (Systemic)

   • Types: Puppet Man, Man in a Shell, Nodding Man, Vulgar Man, Frivolous Man.

   • Value: High utility for the state, low value for humanity. They maintain the status quo and provide the "grease" for social machinery through compliance.

4. Level 4: The Strategic Parasites (Intellectual/Ego)

   • Types: Cynic, Sour Man, Eunuch Man, Slanderer, Parsimonious Man, Clever Man.

   • Value: Negative. They possess intelligence but use it to protect their ego or tear down others.

5. Level 5: The Architects of Malice (Complex/Deep)

   • Types: Slaughterer, Accomplice Man, Shadow Man.

   • Value: Dangerous. These are the "brains" behind systemic evil, manipulating reality and people with high-level calculation.

6. Level 6: The Transcendental (Self-Aware)

   • Types: The Last Man, The Crevice Man.

   • Value: The Last Man represents the tragic end of complexity (fatigue), while The Crevice Man is the only one with true value—preserving wisdom and integrity within the gaps of a broken system.

---

II. The Totalitarian End Game

In a totalitarian society, the state acts as the ultimate "Sculptor" of these types. The goal is to eliminate Complexity and Integrity (The Crevice Man) and maximize Utility and Predictability.

• Phase 1: Standardization. The state turns everyone into Puppet Men and Nodding Men. Independent thought is replaced by the "Shell."

• Phase 2: Use and Discard. The Accomplice Men and Shadow Men are used to purge the Fierce Men (uncontrolled power). Once the purge is over, the Accomplices are themselves "slaughtered" to ensure no one is smarter than the Centre.

• Phase 3: The Human Livestock. The final goal is a society of Animal Men and Flesh Men—content, fed, and mindless—overseen by a few Eunuch Men who have traded their souls for the privilege of holding the whip.

The Hunger for Presence: Why the "Flesh Man" Can Never Be a KOL

 

The Hunger for Presence: Why the "Flesh Man" Can Never Be a KOL

In Liu Zaifu’s Twenty-Five Types of People, the Flesh Man (肉人) represents the ultimate state of biological reductionism. These are individuals who exist purely for sensory gratification—eating, sleeping, and procreating—devoid of spiritual depth or intellectual ambition. While social media is full of "Mukbang" (eating shows) and fitness influencers, the true "Flesh Man" is fundamentally incompatible with the role of a Key Opinion Leader (KOL).

Why the Flesh Man Fails in the Digital Economy

1. Lack of Subjectivity: A KOL’s power comes from their "Opinion" or their unique perspective. The Flesh Man has no opinions; they only have appetites. They do not interpret the world; they merely consume it.

2. The Effort of Performance: Being a KOL requires a high level of "Self-Objectification" and discipline—editing, lighting, and narrative building. The Flesh Man is too governed by immediate laziness and comfort to endure the rigorous "labor of vanity" required by social media.

3. Absence of "The Shell": As discussed before, KOLs often fall into types like the "Puppet Man" or "Vulgar Man" because they adopt a persona (a shell). The Flesh Man is too raw and primitive to maintain a digital persona. They are "all body and no mask."

4. No Communicable Spirit: Social media is a medium of symbols and spirits. Even the most superficial influencer is selling a "lifestyle" (an idea). The Flesh Man isn't selling an idea; they are simply a biological process. You can watch a Flesh Man eat, but you cannot follow them, because they are not leading anywhere.

Summary of "Twenty-Five Types of People" (人論二十五種)

 

Summary of "Twenty-Five Types of People" (人論二十五種)

In this work, author Liu Zaifu provides a sharp, humorous, and profound analysis of twenty-five distinct personality types observed within Chinese society, particularly during the late 20th century. Written in the early 1990s after the author moved abroad, the book employs a "light" and often satirical tone to address "heavy" themes of moral decay, spiritual emptiness, and the loss of independent thought. Liu describes these types not merely as depictions of individual evil, but as "social phenomena" and manifestations of "human ugliness". By chronicling these "deformed" and "pathological" personalities—such as the Puppet Man and the Man in a Shell—the author reflects on a national crisis of character where servility and conformity have replaced excellence and integrity. Ultimately, the book serves as a call for spiritual awakening and a defense of individual personality and freedom against the tide of collective absurdity.

The First Five Types of People (前五種人論)

here is an overview of the first five types described by Liu Zaifu:

1. The Puppet Man (傀儡人): This type refers to individuals who are manipulated by others and lack their own soul or independent voice. Liu traces this from traditional puppet theater to a social phenomenon where monarchs, officials, and citizens alike become "puppets" who cannot speak for themselves. He emphasizes that this system thrives because individuals fail to self-reflect and instead allow themselves to be "puppetized" by external powers.

2. The Man in a Shell (套中人): Inspired by Chekhov's character Belikov, this type lives within various "shells" or rigid frameworks to avoid "trouble". In a modern context, Liu describes people who hide behind political slogans ("revolutionary shells"), speak only in clichés (eight-legged essays), and use these shells to secure power, status, and material wealth while suppressing genuine human feelings.

3. The Cynic (犬儒人): Originating from the ancient Greek Cynic school, these individuals adopt a detached, mocking, and resentful attitude toward truth, faith, and life. While the original Cynics lived simple, ascetic lives, modern cynics use this attitude as a psychological shield or a way to navigate a world they no longer believe in.

4. The Nodding Man (點頭人): This type is characterized by constant agreement and a lack of personal conviction. They occupy leadership positions or social roles where their primary function is to signal compliance with authority rather than to lead with vision or integrity. (Note: Detailed description of this type in individual chapters beyond the introductory mentions is not fully provided in the snippet, but its core characteristic is "nodding" as a survival or advancement tactic).

5. The Vulgar/Populist Man (媚俗人): These individuals fall into the trap of "vulgarity" and "officialdom," tailoring their words and actions to please the masses or the authorities. They are so accustomed to the "official language" of the state that they find genuine human discourse—such as talk of humanity or subjectivity—to be shocking or dangerous.

Types 6 to 15: The Spectrum of Deformity

6. The Flesh Man (肉人): Purely biological beings. They lack spiritual depth and exist only for sensory gratification—eating, drinking, and reproduction.

7. The Fierce Man (猛人): Individuals who mistake cruelty for strength. They use raw power or intimidation to dominate others in environments where the rule of law is weak.

8. The Last Man (末人): Based on Nietzschean philosophy, these are the products of a decaying civilization who seek only comfortable mediocrity and avoid all challenges.

9. The Frivolous Man (輕人): People without moral gravity. They treat sacred concepts like love and faith with a flippant, shallow attitude, drifting through life without commitment.

10. The Sour Man (酸人): Pedantic individuals who possess the "smell of books" without the wisdom. They are often envious and use their learning to criticize anything vibrant or successful.

11. The Eunuch Man (閹人): Refers to "spiritual eunuchs" who have surgically removed their own dignity and manhood to serve power, groveling before superiors while bullying inferiors.

12. The Enduring Man (忍人): Products of a pathological "culture of endurance." They tolerate extreme injustice out of fear, which eventually leads to a deformed soul or sudden, irrational cruelty.

13. The Accomplice Man (倀人): Professional helpers of evil (as in the legend of the ghost who serves the tiger). They provide the logic and logistics for tyrants or bullies for a "commission."

14. The Reckless Man (妄人): Grandiose and self-deluded individuals who act without a basis in reality, believing they can rewrite the laws of nature and society.

15. The Shadow Man (陰人): Masters of the hidden agenda. They avoid direct confrontation, preferring to destroy others through cold calculation, backstabbing, and whispers in the dark.

The Final Ten: From Schemers to Survivors (Types 16–25)

16. The Shadow Man (陰人) These individuals operate entirely in the darkness of secrecy. They are masters of hidden agendas, backstabbing, and cold calculation. They avoid direct confrontation, preferring to destroy others through whispers and complex traps, representing the "coldness" of a society lacking transparency.

17. The Clever Man (巧人) These individuals possess "petty intelligence" but lack "great wisdom." They are masters of social maneuvering and opportunism, navigating life by reading the room and changing faces to suit their environment. They always ensure they are on the winning side without ever taking a firm moral stand.

18. The Slaughterer (屠人) Not necessarily a physical killer, but a spiritual one. This type takes pleasure in destroying the reputation, creativity, or spirit of others. They are professional character assassins who use words or social shaming to "slaughter" anything that shows signs of independent excellence.

19. The Animal Man (畜人) These people have been completely tamed by the system. They have traded their human dignity for "fodder"—material security and basic survival. Like livestock, they are content as long as they are fed, showing no desire for freedom or higher intellectual pursuits.

20. The Slanderer (讒人) Those who thrive on spreading malicious rumors. Their power lies in the ear of authority; they poison the atmosphere by distorting truths to eliminate rivals. They represent the "invisible rot" in a community that prevents trust from forming.

21. The Parsimonious Man (儉人) This is not about financial thrift, but a parsimony of the soul. These individuals are stingy with praise, love, and kindness. They hoard their energy and emotions, living a narrow, impoverished internal life because they fear that giving anything away will diminish themselves.

22. The Infatuated Man (癡人) People who are blinded by a single, narrow obsession—whether it be power, a specific ideology, or past glory. Their infatuation prevents them from seeing the complexity of reality, leading them to act in ways that are often absurd or self-destructive.

23. The Eccentric Man (怪人) Individuals whose behavior has become bizarre and disconnected from human norms due to prolonged isolation or social pressure. Their "strangeness" is a symptom of a fractured society where natural human expression has been suppressed or twisted.

24. The Idle Man (閒人) The "superfluous" people who have no purpose or contribution to society. They consume resources without producing anything, drifting through life in a state of spiritual vacuum, often becoming the "audience" for the cruelty or absurdity of others.

25. The Crevice Man (隙縫人) This is the author's final, more sympathetic archetype. These are individuals—often intellectuals—who find small "crevices" or gaps in the rigid structures of society to survive and maintain their integrity. Like the Jewish people or exiled scholars, they use these small spaces to cultivate wisdom and resilience.

Examples of the 25 Personality Types

1. The Puppet Man (傀儡人)

   • Example: Puyi (The Last Emperor of China). During the Manchukuo era, he held the title of Emperor but had no actual power, serving entirely as a tool for the Japanese Imperial Army.

2. The Man in a Shell (套中人)

   • Example: Belikov (from Chekhov’s The Man in a Case). He lived in constant fear of "something happening," wearing galoshes and carrying an umbrella even in good weather, hiding behind rigid social rules.

3. The Cynic (犬儒人)

   • Example: The Joker (from The Dark Knight). He views all human morality and order as a "bad joke," using chaos to mock those who still believe in truth or justice.

4. The Nodding Man (點頭人)

   • Example: The Courtiers in The Emperor’s New Clothes. Despite seeing the King was naked, they nodded in agreement with the "beauty" of the robes to avoid being seen as unfit for office.

5. The Vulgar/Populist Man (媚俗人)

   • Example: Gilderoy Lockhart (from Harry Potter). A man who lived entirely for fame and public approval, fabricating heroic stories to please the masses while lacking any real substance.

6. The Flesh Man (肉人)

   • Example: Homer Simpson (from The Simpsons). Though lovable, he represents the archetype of a man driven almost entirely by base biological urges: donuts, beer, and television.

7. The Fierce Man (猛人)

   • Example: Tywin Lannister (from Game of Thrones). A man who mistook absolute cruelty and raw power for leadership, intimidating everyone to maintain his family's dominance.

8. The Last Man (末人)

   • Example: The Citizens of Axiom (from WALL-E). Humans who have surrendered all struggle and creativity for a life of automated, sedentary comfort and screen-watching.

9. The Frivolous Man (輕人)

   • Example: Tom and Daisy Buchanan (from The Great Gatsby). Wealthy individuals who "smashed up things and creatures" and then retreated back into their money and vast carelessness.

10. The Sour Man (酸人)

    • Example: Kong Yiji (from Lu Xun’s stories). A pedantic scholar who clung to his long robe and useless knowledge of "four ways to write a character" while starving and being mocked.

11. The Eunuch Man (閹人)

    • Example: Gríma Wormtongue (from Lord of the Rings). A spiritual eunuch who sold his dignity to Saruman, groveling before power while poisoning the mind of King Théoden.

12. The Enduring Man (忍人)

    • Example: Winston Smith (from 1984, pre-rebellion). He endured the psychological and physical oppression of Big Brother for years out of fear, leading to a deformed, hollow internal life.

13. The Accomplice Man (倀人)

    • Example: Adolf Eichmann. A high-ranking Nazi who claimed he was just "following orders" and doing the logistics, serving as the professional accomplice to a genocidal regime.

14. The Reckless Man (妄人)

    • Example: Don Quixote. A man living in a state of grand delusion, attacking windmills thinking they are giants, acting entirely without a basis in reality.

15. The Shadow Man (陰人)

    • Example: Lord Varys (from Game of Thrones). Known as the "Spider," he operated entirely through whispers, secrets, and backroom deals to manipulate the fate of the realm.

16. The Clever Man (巧人)

    • Example: Frank Abagnale (from Catch Me If You Can). A master of changing identities and reading people to gain an advantage, always staying one step ahead through petty charm.

17. The Slaughterer (屠人)

    • Example: Dolores Umbridge (from Harry Potter). A spiritual slaughterer who used bureaucratic "Educational Decrees" and psychological torture to destroy the spirit and independence of students.

18. The Animal Man (畜人)

    • Example: The Proles (from 1984). The masses kept content with heavy labor, beer, and gambling, never desiring freedom because their basic "livestock" needs were minimally met.

19. The Slanderer (讒人)

    • Example: Iago (from Shakespeare’s Othello). A man who thrived on poisonous whispers, destroying Othello by slandering Desdemona and feeding Othello’s insecurities.

20. The Parsimonious Man (儉人)

    • Example: Ebenezer Scrooge (pre-transformation). Not just financially cheap, but emotionally parsimonious; he was stingy with kindness, love, and any form of human warmth.

21. The Infatuated Man (癡人)

    • Example: Jay Gatsby. Infatuated with a single, narrow vision of the past (Daisy), his obsession blinded him to the reality of the present, leading to his destruction.

22. The Eccentric Man (怪人)

    • Example: Howard Hughes (later years). A man whose social isolation and immense pressure led him to live in total darkness, disconnected from human norms and reality.

23. The Idle Man (閒人)

    • Example: The Lotus Eaters (from The Odyssey). People who lived in a state of perpetual idleness and spiritual vacuum, consuming lotus plants and contributing nothing to the world.

24. The Crevice Man (隙縫人)

    • Example: Albert Einstein. As a Jewish scientist in a turbulent era, he was a "crevice man" who had to move between nations to find the space to cultivate his immense wisdom.

The Uncomfortable Truth: Why Inequality is the Cornerstone of a Truly Fair Society

 

The Uncomfortable Truth: Why Inequality is the Cornerstone of a Truly Fair Society

In our modern discourse, "equality" has become the sacred cow, the unquestioned ideal. We chant its praises, strive for its implementation, and demonize anything that smacks of "inequality." But what if this widespread adoration of equality is fundamentally misguided? What if true fairness, genuine societal flourishing, actually demands inequality, and conversely, a relentless pursuit of sameness leads to a profoundly unfair and stagnant world? Prepare to be uncomfortable, because it's time to challenge the dogma: unequal is fair, and equal is unfair.

Let's strip away the utopian fantasies and look at the raw, undeniable realities of daily life. Consider the classroom. Little Johnny spends hours poring over textbooks, mastering complex equations, and writing insightful essays. Across the aisle, Susie barely cracks a book, preferring social media to quadratic formulas. Come exam day, Johnny aces the test, Susie fails. Is it "fair" to give them both an A? Of course not. Johnny's superior grade is a direct, fair consequence of his superior effort and intellect. To equalize their grades would be a profound injustice to Johnny, devaluing his hard work and rewarding Susie's apathy. This isn't just about grades; it's about the fundamental principle that unequal effort deserves unequal reward.

Extend this to the athletic field. One athlete dedicates years to grueling training, sacrificing personal time, enduring pain, and pushing physical limits. Another dabbles, showing up sporadically, putting in minimal effort. When the former wins the championship, are we to declare it "unfair" because the other didn't win too? The very essence of sport, of competition, is the celebration of unequal performance. The gold medal is earned through superior, unequal dedication and talent. To give everyone a trophy, regardless of their finish, is not fair; it’s a patronizing insult to those who truly excelled, fostering a culture of mediocrity and entitlement.

Now, let’s tackle the elephant in the room: wealth and opportunity. We often hear calls for "equal pay for all," or the redistribution of wealth to achieve "fairness." But consider the entrepreneur who risks their life savings, works 80-hour weeks, endures countless failures, and finally creates a product that employs thousands and improves millions of lives. Is it "fair" to then strip away their disproportionate success and distribute it equally among those who took no risk, offered no innovation, and contributed nothing to that specific venture? Their wealth is a fair reflection of their extraordinary contribution, their unequal vision, and their willingness to bear unequal burdens. To equalize their outcome would be to punish ingenuity and deter future progress.

The pursuit of absolute equality often leads to profound unfairness because it ignores the inherent differences in human beings. We are not interchangeable cogs. We possess unique talents, varying levels of ambition, different capacities for work, and distinct life circumstances. To treat everyone identically, regardless of these critical distinctions, is to treat them unequally in a meaningful sense. Giving a visually impaired student the exact same textbook as a sighted student, without any accommodations, is "equal" but deeply unfair. True fairness, in this context, demands unequal treatment – specialized materials, assistive technology – to create an equitable playing field.

Furthermore, a society obsessed with equal outcomes actively undermines the very incentives that drive progress. Why would anyone strive for excellence, innovate, or take risks if the rewards for groundbreaking achievement are no different from those for bare minimum effort? If the brilliant scientist who cures a disease receives the same compensation and recognition as someone who merely clocks in and out, the motivation to push boundaries evaporates. This isn't about greed; it's about the human psychology of motivation. Rewarding unequal contributions is the engine of a dynamic, improving society.

The "everyone gets a trophy" mentality, while seemingly benign, is a daily example of how the quest for equality can breed unfairness. It teaches children that participation is synonymous with achievement, blurring the lines between effort and outcome. It robs those who truly excel of the unique satisfaction of earned victory and shields those who didn't perform well from the valuable lessons of failure. This false "fairness" ultimately creates a society ill-equipped to face real-world challenges where performance does matter.

In conclusion, the notion that "unequal is fair, and equal is unfair" forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature and societal dynamics. A truly fair society is not one where everyone has the same outcome, but one where individuals are free to pursue their potential, where effort and talent are acknowledged and rewarded disproportionately, and where differences are not merely tolerated but leveraged for collective advancement. To demand equality of outcome is to demand a static, uninspired, and ultimately unjust society that punishes excellence and rewards mediocrity. Let us embrace the productive, dynamic inequalities that drive us forward, for in them lies the truest form of societal fairness.