> how do you determine what is okay and not okay, and who those rules apply to? this has nothing to do with the collectivism/individualism issue though. for example, the soviets were extremely collectivist, but their policies were very different from ethnocentrism similar to us of today which is highly individualist with the same ethnocentric morals of the soviets. collectivism/individualism has nothing to do with morals but how a society should be structured as. > i meant by collectivism vs individualism the problem is you're not talking about collectivism vs individualism but about other topics entirely. > low/high ethnocentrism. this is the problem here. you're desperately trying to wiggle yourself out of admitting you're for collectivism by creating these insane dichotomies that don't make any sense in order to not admit you are for collectivism but you've been brainwashed so hard by modern western liberalism that collectivism is bad that you can't process it any other way. ethnocentrism is by design a collectivist idea. the degree of how collectivist an idea is doesn't matter. excessive collectivism is bad just as much as excessive individualism, nobody argued otherwise except you.   > and the empire started collapsing collapsing in what way? the roman empire "collapsing" existed longer than the us existed in its entire history. china didn't even have a dynasty that lasted longer than 200 years aside from the non-native manchus. > the power shift from the european west to the non-european east you're making your own headcanon now. the same problems that plagued and caused the downfall of the western half did so with the eastern half. > china did not have decentralized duchies but rather a centralized bureaucracy not really. china had vassals who paid tribute to the emperor. the majority of chinese history is literally these vassals growing too powerful and deposing the emperor and establishing a new dynasty.
Bulgaria