New Five-Year Plan aims for ‘high-quality’ economic reform, a tech leap forward and new era of common prosperity
By Pepe Escobar with permission and first posted at Asia Times
It’s Lianghui (“Two Sessions”) time – the annual ritual of the Beijing leadership. The stars of the show are the top political advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference; and the traditional delivery of a work report by the Prime Minister to the top legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC).
The review of the draft outline of China’s 14th Five-Year Plan will proceed all the way to March 15. But in the current juncture, this is not only about 2025 (remember Made in China 2025, which remains in effect). The planning goes long-range towards targets in the Vision 2035 project (achieving “basic socialist modernization”) and even beyond to 2049, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.
Premier Li Keqiang, delivering the government work report for 2021, stressed that the target for GDP growth is “above 6%” (the IMF had previously projected 8.1%). That includes the creation of at least 11 million new urban jobs.
On foreign policy, Li could not draw a sharper contrast with the Hegemon: “China will pursue an independent foreign policy of peace” and will “promote the building of a new type of international relations”.
That’s code for Beijing eventually working with Washington on specific dossiers, but most of all focusing on strengthening trade/investment/finance relations with the EU, ASEAN, Japan and the Global South.
The outline of the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) for the Chinese economy had already been designed last October, at the CCP plenum. The NPC will now approve it. The key focus is the “dual circulation” policy, whose best definition, translated from Mandarin, is “double development dynamics”.
That means a concerted drive to consolidate and expand the domestic market while continuing to push foreign trade/investment – as in the myriad Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. Conceptually, this amounts to a quite sophisticated, very Daoist, yin and yang balancing.
In early 2021, President Xi Jinping, while extolling Chinese “conviction and resilience, as well as our determination and confidence”, was keen to stress the nation faces “unprecedented challenges and opportunities”. He told the Politburo “favorable social conditions” must be created by all means available all the way to 2025, 2035 and 2049.
Which brings us to this new stage of Chinese development.
The key target to watch is “common prosperity” (or, better yet, “shared prosperity”), to be implemented alongside technological innovations, respect for the environment, and fully addressing the “rural question”.
Xi has been adamant: there’s too much inequality in China – regional, urban-rural, income disparities.
It’s as if in a cool reading of the dialectical drive of historical materialism in China, we would arrive at the following model. Thesis: imperial dynasties. Antithesis: Mao Zedong. Synthesis: Deng Xiaoping, followed by a few derivations (especially Jiang Zemin) all the way to the real synthesis: Xi.
On the Chinese “threat”
Li stressed China’s success in containing Covid-19 domestically; the nation spent at least $62 billion on it. This should be read as a subtle message, addressed especially to the Global South, about the efficacy of China’s governance system to design and execute not only complex development plans but also cope with serious emergencies.
What’s ultimately at stake in this competition between wobbly Western (neo)liberal democracies and “socialism with Chinese characteristics” (copyright Deng Xiaoping) is the capacity to manage and improve people’s lives. Chinese scholars are very proud of their national development plan ethos, defined as SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound).
A very good example is how China, in less than two decades, managed to extricate 800 million people out of poverty: an absolute first in History.
All of the above is rarely evoked as Atlanticist circles drown in virtually 24/7 China demonization hysteria. Wang Huiyao, the director of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, at least had the merit to bring into the discussion Sinologist Kerry Brown of King’s College, London.
Drawing from comparisons between Leibniz – close to Jesuit scholars, interested in Confucianism – and Montesquieu – who only saw a despotic, autocratic, imperial system – Brown re-examines 250 years of entrenched Western positions on China and remarks how is “more difficult than ever” to engage in a reasonable debate.
He identifies three major problems.
1. Throughout modern history, there’s no Western appreciation of China as a strong and powerful nation, and its restored historical importance. Western mindsets are not ready to deal with it.
2. The modern West never really thought of China as a global power; at best as a land power. China was never seen as a naval power, or capable of exercising power way beyond its borders.
3. Propelled by the iron certainty over its values – enter the very much debased concept of “true democracy” – the Atlanticist West has no idea what to make of Chinese values. Ultimately the West is not interested in understanding China. Confirmation bias reigns; the result is China as a “threat to the West”.
Brown points to the key predicament afflicting any scholar or analyst trying to explain China: how to convey China’s extremely complex worldview, how to capture the China story in a few words. Soundbites do not apply.
Examples: explaining how a whopping 1.3 billion people in China have some sort of health security, and how 1 billion enjoy some kind of social security. Or explaining the intricate details of China’s ethnic policies.
Premier Li, delivering his report, vowed to “forge a strong sense of community among the Chinese people and encourage all of China’s ethnic groups to work in concert for common prosperity and development”. He did not specifically mention Xinjiang or Tibet. It’s an uphill task to explain the trials and tribulations of integrating ethnic minorities into a national project amid non-stop hysteria on Xinjiang, Taiwan, South China Sea and Hong Kong.
Come and join the party
Whatever the Atlanticist West’s whims, what matters for the Chinese masses is how the new Five-Year Plan will deliver, practically, what Xi has previously described as “high-quality” economic reform.
Things look good for powerhouses Shanghai and Guangdong – they were already aiming at 6% growth. Hubei – where Covid-19 cases first appeared – is actually targeting 10%.
Based on frenetic social media activity, public opinion confidence in the Beijing leadership remains solid, considering a series of factors. China won the “health war” against Covid-19 in record time; economic growth is back; absolute poverty has been eradicated, according to the original timetable; the civilization-state is firmly established as a “moderately prosperous society” 100 years after the founding of the Communist Party.
Since the start of the millennium, China’s GDP grew no less than 11-fold. Over the past 10 years, GDP more than doubled, from $6 trillion to $15 trillion. No less than 99 million rural people, 832 counties and 128,000 rural villages were the last ones to be extricated from absolute poverty.
This complex hybrid economy is now even engaged in setting up an elaborate, “sweet” trap for Western firms. Sanctions? Don’t be fools; come here and enjoy doing business in a market of at least 700 million consumers.
As I’ve noted last year, the systemic process in play is like a sophisticated mix of internationalist Marxism with Confucianism (privileging harmony, abhorring conflict): the framework for “community with a shared future for mankind”. One country – actually a civilization-state, focused on its renewed historical mission as re-emerging superpower. Two sessions. And so many targets – and all of them achievable.
The decline of socialism in Russia began 67 years ago today with the poisoning of Stalin. China honours Stalin and builds a just society.
… actually, its been 68 years today. I know, because I had the privilege to be a contemporary of the great man for 47 days. Shame, his murderers got away with it and subsequently ruined not just the USSR but the whole world.
Let’s keep a sense of proportion. Think that there are people around who had the ‘privilege’ to be contemporary with the ‘Little Father” for some years, people who had the ‘privilege’ to see the smiling portraits of the ‘Little Father’ looking benevolently at the people, in every corner, on a daily basis, but knowing that it was the ‘Big Brother’ watching them. People who can’t forget the sentiment of elation felt when they heard the megaphones broadcasting the sad news.
Excellent overview of the “things to come”, Pepe!
You write: “The civilisation-state is firmly established as a “moderately prosperous society” hundred years after the founding of the communist party.” This truth reminds me of the following sentences by Robert M. Somers in Arthur F. Wright’s book “The Sui Dynasty”:
“China’s great consolidators Han Wu-ti (r. 140-87 B.C.), T’ang T’ai-tsung (r. 627-650) and K’ang-hsi of the Ch’ing (r. 1661-1722) (and I would add: Deng Xiaoping, r. 1978-1994; auct.) typically came to power at some distance from the founding period, and no dynasty reached the summit of its strength and prosperity until the passage of a century or more. By then, the legacy of contention from the founding had dissipated and a wary acceptance of the new regime had been transformed into proud and even coveted participation in an all-encompassing structure of power.”
A nice way to describe how, in a way, “dynastic history” repeats itself cyclically in the Middle Kingdom. Well, Wan sui!
Mr. Pei:
Han Wu, T’ang T’ai-tsung, and Kang Hsi are all noted for their expansion of Chinese territories proper, but when oh when did Deng Xiaoping moved Chinese border an inch? Don’t add him to the list.
Deng should be added to the list of Dai Yu (the one who overcame flooding in China 4,500 years ago), Li Bing (the one who constructed the river divider in Chengdu), and Sui Yang Ti (the one who dugged the Grand Canal). IMO the hail ‘Wan Sui’ belongs to that list!
Pepe, thank you for an excellent summary of China’s commitment to progress! The West’s ‘post-industrial society’ won’t be happy as China leaves it decomposing under US tutelage for more promising prospects elsewhere.
I suspect that the ‘Axis of Kindness’ will enact something like YADDA: Yellow Asian Dictatorship Damnation Act. Here, their inspiration is quite impressive, admittedly.
Covid-19 was a bump in the road for China.
Covid-19 was a road that opened and swallowed the USA.
I had calculated that China needed another 8-10 years to surpass the USA economically and near-equal it technologically.
Now, move that calculation forward based on China’s recovery and growth contrasted with the US’ persistent self-destruction in the hands of Crash Test Dummy Biden and his Woke army of ideologues hell bent on destroying American values. I think five years, maybe six, will do for the race to be over.
Geopolitics will sort out over the coming decade, nowhere as fast as the economic and technological race.
Most analysts fear war is the only way China, BRI and Eurasian Integration can be stopped.
That’s why Russian military and diplomatic moves are crucial. Peace is waged by Russia, while the race for Economic and Technology Primacy is waged by China.
The Hegemon will lose on both fronts. And war becomes to its planners (not the ideologues driving for it) a suicidal event. The West is at a dead end.
Biden Group is planning for small wars. Another flawed idea. The US loses these faster today than a decade ago.
No place to run, no place to hide. The Hegemon is disintegrating (to plug our friend Andrei Maryanov’s new book.)
We are watching an Empire die by its own hand. The USA is in the hands of a death cult, Liberalism.
“Covid-19 was a bump in the road for China. Covid-19 was a road that opened and swallowed the USA.”
Why is that, you might ask? According to the Times of Israel, “US intelligence agencies alerted Israel to the coronavirus outbreak in China already in November [of 2019.]” Here’s the link to that article if you’re interested…
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-alerted-israel-nato-to-disease-outbreak-in-china-in-november-report/
Whatever you might think about the origins of COVID-19, there is no denying that it served as cover for the biggest transfer of wealth in human history from the US Treasury to the banksters and the big corpse, trillions and trillions to bail them out from the collapsing derivatives market last spring. Trump and his Kosher Nostra pals were forewarned about this windfall, so they were first in line on March 25th when the Senate voted unanimously, 96-0, in favor of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. That was the main reason why China was able to fight off the virus in short order, while the USA deliberately allowed it to run its course until, as you say, “Covid-19 was a road that opened and swallowed the USA.”
What is ironic is that first Italy, and then the US and the rest of the World, followed the insane ‘lockdown’ policy of China. There were detailed plans in place in how to deal with an epidemic. And, they did not include locking up every (healthy) person in the country, closing most of the businesses and economy, and then running around with face diapers and ‘social distancing’. If you know anything, and I do, these measures are beyond farcical. But, Italy tried it and lo and behold the freedom-loving people meekly accepted it, trashing liberties it took centuries to achieve, followed quickly by everyone else. For those with any love of personal liberty, and sense, and knowledge, it was like being dropped into an unbelievable nightmare. All the little mini-dictators soon realized that if they pumped up the fear 24 hours a day, they could get people to do any ridiculous, nonsensical thing that came into their head. If we don’t forget the ‘Chinese’ approach soon, we will live our lives in a medical tyranny.
Yeah – they followed the ‘insane lockdown policy’ of China?. The news is that they did not know what they were doing. None of these countries that you mention and most others had the social support systems and sheer social juice to support lockdowns. No wonder they failed because they were too dumb to support their lockdowns socially. You don’t lockdown a society without social support. Now they are trying to blame TJaaina, said with a spit in the pronunciation.
New Zealand, China, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, and a few more have followed textbook public health measures to eliminate the virus. Their societies and economies are open for business. People forget that China has more experience with public health crises than the rest of the world combined. Eventually one starts wondering why?
China has a vast experience with all sorts of major crises (earthquakes, floods) and plans to deal with. There is no doubt (in my mind at least) that China treated the Covid crisis as a biological attack they were expecting, as a war situation and introduced the measures required in a situation of war – curfew, martial law. The likelihood that the virus originated somewhere else – (America, for example) very high.
Scratch a rugged Western ’individualist’ and marvel at the little invertebrate that peeps out beneath.
In 1971 David Rockefeller held a meeting in New York with the heads of the most powerful corporations in the US and outlined the strategy of investing in the Chinese People’s Republic. In attendance was some very important Chinese high ranking Communist party members. Within a few decades, the CPR was a potential rival to the US. So the question is why would ardent capitalist ultra wealthy trillionaires invest in ideological enemies, who were dedicated destroying to the running dogs of the paper tiger ???
Forget ideology, follow the money.
There were trillions to be made by sucking the blood out of the USA.
Thanks for posing a relevant question, Brianborou.
Most of the comments after an article like this are tiring variations of “China CCP good!”, “Big bad West going down!” “Yea, team China!” None of this, sheds any light on the important dynamics of the day.
Unfortunately, the big, bad hegemonic West is more chimera than reality. Who is pulling the strings in the US? Who is behind the economy-destroying and freedom-eliminating lockdowns? The answer is the seen and unseen billionaire club members, closely connected to those same Rockefellers. The real hegemons have simply used the US as they now are using China. Anyone paying attention should know that the wealth transfer to China was not an act of altruism by these historic string pullers. How they plan to continue their rule with China in the world leadership role is a fascinating question, and one of the few actually worth discussing.
The rah-rah China stuff is no different than the shouting of beer guzzlers at a football game. Lots of fun and just as meaningful. W
possibly…but why would china agree to the sassoon clan raping it once more? china plays go rather than snakes n ladders. it’s as likely the clan believes they are smarter, slyer & can simply because they have for so long, that is imho the more probable game plan, hubris being what it is. after centuries of overtaking a nation, sucking it dry & tossing its corpse in favour of another, is after all the habit & those habituated mayn’t see entirely clearly but act by necessitated rote, which may be a fatal flaw. nonetheless, very like the spider wasp their existence depends on a victim. israel’s plan is global & asia/eurasia is essential to it.
Good comment, my thoughts havd been running to the same conclusion. Everyone is enjoying the rise and fall. I wanna know are the Puppeteers involved in this new era arising. Because they are Rhodes to Rockefellers to Khardokovsky they pull the purse strings alright.
I appreciate the mentioning of Kerry Brown and his commentary to the effect that rational discussion about China is hardly possible. That has certainly been my experience for decades to date. It all goes back to Montesquieu and Montesquieu goes back to Voltaire. Leibniz is not that important; Voltaire, the great Sinophile, and his Jesuit educated cohorts are absolutely important. Voltaire and his contemporaries learned that China was a non hereditary aristocracy based upon a deeply humanistic philosophy. This rocked the philosophes of Europe. This humanistic philosophy compared favourably to the prevailing Western cosmology of heavens and hells, mandating a secular philosophy of rewards for the happy few and punishments for the many obliged to suffer a divinely ordained vale of tears. But just as critical and revolutionary was the spectre of a non hereditary aristocracy based on demonstrated merit that scandalised the landed ‘nobility’ of Europe, for whom the people only existed to service it’s luxuries. Montesquieu wrote his books to refuse these observations about China that circulated amount the leading lights of Europe, France above all. Montesquieu basically refused all discussion about Confucianism and in a crucial chapter declared that China was ruled by the lash, and it’s economic integrity explained by his theory of ‘hydraulic despotism’. Oriental despotism comes to be a primary category of governance in his book along with the traditional monarchies and republics.
To say China, or the West is good/bad is superficial. What is powerful is to establish, or change, the terms of analysis and thus debate. That’s what Montesquieu did and his rhetorical turn has prevailed to this day. The Atlanticist rhetoric is deeply beholden to him. When Montesquieu declared that ‘China is ruled by the bastinado’ he aggressively implied that China was a legalist regime, that is, governed by ‘rewards and punishments’ exactly as the Sinophiles were claiming about Europe. Montesquieu, a leading member of the old ‘nobility’ of the sword, simply could not countenance the spectre of Chinese Confucianist humanism as an example of aristocratic governance. It put Montesquieu and his oligarchic – this is the proper term – class to a richly deserved shame. The point to make here is that the Sinophiles had already changed the terms of debate when they, following the example of the Chinese, opposed Confucianist humanism to a downgraded ‘legalism’, the doctrine of ‘small men’ who must make their way in life by means of sticks and carrots. That was the longstanding dichotomy in traditional China, which we could say paralleled the opposite dichotomy in the West: between the rule of men and the rule of law (legalism!). For the first time, the dawn of Sinophilia challenged this longstanding dichotomy and asserted a form of aristocratic governance based on Confucianist humanist principles. This is the nub of the matter, the conceptual fulcrum we must clarify if we are to achieve a proper and philosophical comparison between Western and Eastern ideas of good governance. Of course, under the terms of Atlanticism, that’s impossible.
With these people who take their cues from Montesquieu and practically the whole liberal tradition since the publication of his books, you can try to explain Confucianist ideas and Chinese history in rational terms but you will come to a point where all discussion is shut down with declarations of a universal behaviourist psychology. Man is motivated by hopes and fears and must be governed accordingly. What we have here are two ‘civilisational states’ predicated upon completely different ways of viewing ourselves and the world we live in. In the West an unfriendly synthesis between the theology of fallen nature and a humanism of ‘man as he really is’ garnished with suitable quotes from Thucydides and Hobbes, stands opposed to the confident doctrine of natural human goodness that has long prevailed among the people of China and their leading lights. The present historical moment is rich with contemporary resonances with the early Enlightenment.
“Legalism” in Chinese history is actually a bewildering misnomer, causet by the fact that the Chinese term ‘fǎ/leg.’ in the one word “Fǎ’jiā/Fát-gà/(Law school) encompasses four very different ideas of rule/norm/punishment/trixtery/nature ((法or灋: /fǎ’/ in Mandarin, /fá:t/ in Canonese as spoken in Hòngkóng and /φa’/ along the stretch of the the Nánjing-Shànghǎi-Hángzhou-Ningbó-Wēnzhou areas)) ;
a: Rule of Law (semi-Confusian: Xǘnzǐ/Hsün-tzu)
b: Rule by Law (Hán Fēi zi and Lǚ-shì)
c: Rule through harsh punishment (and a few rewards)
d: Rule through knowing the methods for how to fool the populace and political rivals
e: Rule through propaganda and religion (organized Dàoism/Taoism also partly in the Dào-Dé’-jīng
f: Non-rule through non-action and respecting the forces of nature and society (Lǎo-zi & Lǎo-Máo): Letting the enemies expose themselves before You act.
Only two or three of these policies are taught un USofNorth A law schools. Maybe a little mora at Imperial OxBridge?
The problem with this kind of academic approach is that we get stuck into Western-centric ideological debates that don’t bring any real information to the table about the factual differentiation between the West and China.
Saying that China is despotic as was Montesquieu’s view is no more than an opinion that he derived from an analytical system that emerged in the context of Western Europe. The context in which China emerged, and the axioms of civilization and worldview that its citizens inherited, are all fundamentally different and so Western concepts don’t apply in a valid analysis of China !
The difficulty, for Westerners, is to recognize the following :
— first that our concepts as they developed along the path of Western Modernity don’t apply to the Chinese reality…
— secondly we have to accept what you described accurately as : ” What we have here are two ‘civilisational states’ predicated upon completely different ways of viewing ourselves and the world we live in” (this civilizational state concept is unfortunately not very helpful).
— in conclusion understanding the reality of China necessitates a completely new conceptual framework. We can evidently inspire ourselves from the concepts developed by the Chinese themselves but … their concepts are constructed as additional layers of meaning that are all difficult to render accurately in a Western language for people whose culture is so radically different.
My personal conclusion is that we Westerners are stuck with unworkable existing conceptual frameworks and in consequence we have to start from scratch at the origin of the differentiation which resides in the fact that :
— rupture is the model of the Western formation of ideas and knowledge which started with the violent rupture with animism by villages that had switched to agriculture in the Tri-Continental-Area starting some 10,000 years ago…
— continuity is the model of the Chinese formation of ideas and knowledge which simply reproduced the animist system that had been built by the animist (wo)men of knowledge (shaman) over the preceding tens of thousands of years…
This is where the differentiation between the West and China originated. And so the intellectual digging has to start there. Unfortunately the sources are in-existent.
I completely agree with You, Lǎo-Dān! My point was just to point out that “Legalist/Fǎ’jiā” gives no coherent meening unless specifying what type of law or rules or crafts and tricks-set of theories and practices one refers to. (It is however somewhat meaningful as a shorthand term for some groupings of non-Confusian and/or non-Buddhist traditions.)
For one who lives outside academia and the ivory towers, the sentence “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”… is what applies to the existential war on which we are living. The jurisprudence is dictated by the courts and parliaments and houses of deputies or representatives that are subjects of the British Island and their colonists that inhabit several territories in the globe. The current reality is that most of the world simply kneels or bends down to their thoughts or hallucinations written as in stone for all to obey. In that realm, the labor of those who think and understand a little about the World and its ancient civilizations that have gone to hell and come back to understand that there is a better way to live in this world, is to enlighten the rest of us. Which is the most herculean task by looking at the scenarios that are being played out, be it Hong Kong, Ukraine, Venezuela, or the hospital wards of New York. All of that is being done to keep the Moneyed Minorities in power. Those useless old men and their mote useless offspring are hellbent on condemning the world to heel and worship at any of their whims.
They have real power because they know how to use power, ruthlessly, without mercy.
And no good intentions, no good rhetoric, no thoughtful or honest or rational, or humane discussion will turn them away from their believed right to rule the world by their “Divine Destiny” or their “Divine Origin”.
Putin famously said that to win in a fight, ” you have to hit first and hit hard”. That is yet to be seen. WE do know That President Putin and Chairman Xi are perhaps the most centered thinkers in the political ruling elite, but they are being cornered and some day they will have to retaliate. In the meantime everything that they and others build with those noble aims just serve to enrage those Old Moneyed Minorities. We are seeing some of their retribution and it is getting bolder and more sadistic and more misanthropic.
The world waits for leaders that will lead them out of this Tyranny that goes on for more than 500 years. What will come is what has the world´s population in great anguish, that is the one most disturbing illness of the “pandemic”.
“… the labor of those who think and understand a little about the World and its ancient civilizations that have gone to hell and come back to understand that there is a better way to live in this world, is to enlighten the rest of us”. Yes but… , let’s be realist, academia, and the ivory towers, have a near monopoly on the vehicles of mass communication which are owned by Western big capital holders… “And no good intentions, no good rhetoric, no thoughtful or honest or rational, or humane discussion will turn them away from their believed right to rule the world by their ‘Divine Destiny’ or their ‘Divine Origin”. Yes absolutely right.
But I firmly believe that there is no need to win in this fight… The outcome is already a given. The ignorance of Western big capital and its servants, about the prime principles of life, has left them with a poisoned well :
— Western societal atomization gave ultra-individualism and the separation of the individuals from one another
— the result internally is loneliness and anxiety of the individuals while externally it gives a bunch of nations that have lost any remnant of societal cohesion
— such nations do not have any longer the necessary fire to win a fight…
Montesquieu was not a ”leading member of the old ‘nobility’ of the sword” and of blood, but the contrary, a leading member of the new ‘nobility of the robe’, bourgeois, mostly lawyers, who basically bought their ‘nobility’ through occupancy of judicial or administrative posts (which were venal). Basically the new nobility was resentful of the privileges of the ‘old’ one, resentful of the ‘despotism’ introduced by Louis XIV. His rants against the Chinese despotism were veiled attacks against the absolutism of the French Kings, which led him to excogitate the theories of limiting the royal powers. Voltaire’s ‘admiration’ for Confucianism was an expression of his hatred for the ‘intolerance’ of the Church. But Voltaire also hated Leibniz, like the inspirers of his ‘philosophy’: ”Single vision & Newton’s sleep”. And Leibniz importance in the Sino-European relations is paramount.
In fact Leibniz was the real Sinophile, with a far deeper, scientific and sympathetic understanding of China and Chinese civilization than the ideologues ‘litterati’ like Montesquieu and Voltaire and long before them at that. He had a far deeper and meaningful relation with the Jesuits who were working in China. He not only pictured the transfer of ideas between Europe and Asia, but also visualized the inclusion of Russia in a contemplated chain for cultural transmission and worked out the practical means for doing that. He asserted that Providential foresight has placed Russia between the two great cultural orbits dominated by the emperor K’anghsi and Louis XIV of France, so that its vast intervening territory might be fertilized by the transference of civilization from one side of the world to the other. And he predicated this fertilization on higher principles than the palavers of the ‘Enlighteners’.
We wont have computers without the binary calculus invented by Leibniz, which he considered as a “rediscovery” of Fu Hsi ‘s principles exposed in the I Ching. But Leibniz’s philosophical ‘Weltanschauung’ was the traditional Christian-Platonic philosophy, opposed to the philosophical outlook which created the ‘West’, but close to the traditional Chinese ‘Weltanshauung’.
Montesquieu’s family lineage proceeded from both ‘the sword’ and ‘the robe’. Yes, both Voltaire and Montesquieu were commenting on the French monarchy. There was a debate going on at the time and the subject of China was right in the middle of it. I should have struck the bit about Leibniz. I agree with what you say about him. He stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries and remains of considerable interest but my interest is in political philosophy and the difference that a Sinocentric Enlightenment made. It made a difference then but was strongly opposed, explicitly by Montesquieu who essentially wrote his ‘Law’s against Voltaire and the Sinophiles. He really did say something explicit about China, that is, that China was a legalist monarchy. I called attention to this because there’s a strait line between Montesquieu’s ideology of oriental despotism and world views of the Atlanticists of today. In critically examining an ideology it’s helpful to recognise its line of descent.
‘Higher principles than the palavers of the ‘Enlighteners’. The principles that matter are the ones situated between heaven and earth. Who joins heaven and earth has to get his hands dirty with the businesses of wealth, power, and politics. Pepe entitled his essay ‘the shape of things to come’. It’s not going to be liberal democracy. I’ve offered an argument in the above account and others. Got any ideas?
Let’s get the things straight. Montesquieu was typical ‘noblesse de robe’. He was a jurist (he was ‘président à mortier’ of the Parliament of Bordeaux) and as such had to have university studies, the ‘robe’ being the ‘robe’ of the ‘diplome’ of university (they were called also ‘robins’). He had no connection with the real ‘noblesse d’epee’ which were the scions of the warrior feudal class of the Middle Ages and could trace their lineage to the Crusaders. Among his ancestors were soldiers recruited from what you may call ‘gentry’, who were ennobled for their services (usually at the second generation).
‘Noblesse de robe’ was inferior in status and prestige to the ‘noblesse d’epee’ (they were not allowed to bear l’epee’) which filled all the executive positions in state (governorship of provinces, high commands in the army), although it belonged to the First State (the clergy and the ‘nobility’ old and new). But it was closer to the Tiers Etat, the ‘bourgeois’ (merchants and financiers, especially, who made themselves their way into nobility in increasing numbers). It was basically an ‘aristocracy of merit’.
Now, Montesquieu received his information about China from the same Jesuits as Voltaire and Leibniz. With an exception, his initial informant was a Fr. Foucquet at around 1729, who had developed his own interpretation of Chinese chronology and history (including the anecdote about an Emperor ordering the beating of an official who didn’t show up at an audience) at variance with the ideas of the Society. It was in 1735 that the ‘Geographical, Historical, Chronological, Political, and Physical Description of the Empire of China and Chinese Tartary’ of the Jesuit Jean-Baptiste Du Halde was published. Montesquieu was confused by the contradiction of his prejudices presented by the description of China of Du Halde, but he stuck to his prejudices. He could not renounce his ‘bon mot’: ”C’est le bâton qui gouverne la Chine” (that he attributes falsely to Du Halde). He would not renounce the ‘Western’ view of the despotic ‘Orient’ (be it China, or Russia).
Great summary. Many thanks!
(I believe that Mao holds the copyright to the phrase ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’. He equated ‘Chinese characteristics’ with ‘Confucian’).
“Ultimately the West is not interested in understanding China.”
The West can’t understand itself – its own shortcomings and irrelevance – so how can it understand China?
Only a question: What is defeat the covid 19?
Oki asks: ” What is defeat the covid 19?”
The defeat of fake pandemic Con-19 will be the same as the defeat of fake Muslim terrorist atrocity Con-911; ie, when the sheeple begin to think for themselves. Don’t hold your breath.
In 2014, as far as I could glean from public discussion about the centenary of WW1, the sheeple still believe that WW1 was caused by “Militarism” (Anglo code for German Militarism). Or, if they wish to sound enlightened (“woke”?) they use high-sounding but empty phrases like “diplomatic entanglement” or “sleepwalking into war”. Especially the sheeple in universities rarely discuss Engdahl’s thesis that WW1 was an Anglo-Zionazi-Capitalist Conspiracy to cripple Germany as an industrial competitor, destroy the Turkish Empire, grab the oil wealth of the Middle East for London financiers, and turn the Holy Land into a Jewish State.
The Silence of the Lambs about Con-1914 suggests there is little chance of an end to Con-19 and Con-911 (with their usefulness for herding and fleecing sheeple) in the foreseeable future. Neither shall we see an end to Con-Reset. Con-spirators-in-Chief will pile one Con-fidence-trick upon another, until the whole house of cards collapses.
“The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed” — Dante, Paradiso.
“A moderate house of cards, the greatest wit,
Though he can start it cannot finish it” — Goethe, Faust.
The most evil mafia depends on absolute secrecy for its survival. That is its Achilles heel. The internet is the new Guttenberg Press. They can no longer keep the secrets that you discus under wraps. That is why they are resorting to desperate measures, like 9ll, financial crises, the manufactured COVID crisis, BLM/Antifa riots, fake insurrections, etc. If that fails them, they can always resort to a war. The signals indicate that after 2021 when we are firmly in the Age of Aquarius (the occult is important to them), they will celebrate their mass ritual with great fireworks (nukes).
Dr. NG Marouda
i copied ur comment to my clipboard for future use, will credit you if i use the full comment.
If one has to put ‘con’ in front of every few words to try and make sense, you’re probably being conned or con-fused.
As a European living in China, since the mid-eighties, I observe that the West and China are otherworldly to each other in fundamental ways. And to understand how this other-worldliness came about we have to go back to the historical transition from tribal societies to power-societies and the civilizations they enfolded .
________
It all started with an abrupt warming of the world temperature at the tail-end of the Younger-Dryas some 11,700 years ago that was immediately followed by an explosion of the flora and the fauna in the alluvial plains around the world. This unleashed a rapid growth of the populations of tribal societies. What ensued was world-changing and explains the origin of the other-worldliness, between China and the civilizations grounded in the “religions of the word”, that we find so difficult to comprehend :
— by 10,000 years ago the alluvial plains, in the Tri-Continental-Area (Middle-East for Eurocentrists), were completely occupied by tribal societies and all increases in population from then on were forced to concentrate in villages practicing agriculture. By 8,000 years ago the villages had pushed the tribes out of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and chieftains were fighting among themselves for the control of villages. (this is when Gobekli Tepe was abandoned and voluntarily covered under a thick layer of dirt. See 7.1.2.1. A warming climate at the tail of the Younger dryas). What Gobekli Tepe shows us is that animism, the tribal worldview, was violently rejected by the agricultural villages. This means that a rupture with animism took place in the Tri-Continental-Area that forced the search for new narratives …
By 5,000 years ago city-states in what is presently Southern Irak were competing to form the first Confederation of City-States that would enfold the Sumerian civilization and its religious worldview that glued the minds…
— in present day China the alluvial plains were more than 100 times larger than those in the Fertile Crescent and so the tribal model of society continued to expand unhindered while some neighboring tribes started to unify culturally around 10,000 years ago which ultimately spread a model of cultural unification that consecrated the following trinity : a people, a territory, a worldview symbolized by a sage who is venerated by the people. Around 3000 years ago, under the Zhou Dynasty, this trinity grounded the concept of Tianxia…
In the meantime, the sage symbolizing the cultural unity was called upon to undertake large infrastructure works to save the people from the flooding of Yellow river and this transformed the sage symbol into a sage-administrator …
What is most significant in the transition of China to a power-society is that there was a continuity in its worldview. China kept animism and it adapted it throughout its whole history by stacking add-ons on top of the original knowledge base…
The most significant difference between China and the West originates thus in the fact that :
— the Tri-Continental-Erea operated a a violent rupture with animism that was replaced by a new ideological story that helped the men of power to reproduce their institutions over the long haul of many generations. Over time the roots of that worldview got then imprinted in the subconscious of the citizens as their “axioms of civilization”…
— China operated in continuity with animism while adapting it to changing times by sticking add-ons on top of it (same as with software nowadays). Animism in Modern China is known under the moniker “Traditional Chinese Culture” which covers the following fields : Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Traditional Chinese arts and Culture, Traditional Chinese Martial Arts, Traditional Chinese Governance (TCG), Traditional Chinese Cuisine, and so on and on.
The result of that bifurcation goes as follows :
— the West thinks and acts along the ideological lines given by its axioms of civilization and its Christian worldview
— China thinks and acts along the ultra pragmatic lines given by its axioms of civilization and its animist worldview
Now, the fact is that, axioms of civilization and worldviews form a cultural continuum that synchronizes with the present contextual settings. And this synchronization then forces daily culture in peoples’ unconscious. But me me me thinks it invented it all. The fact is that there is not much free-will in there… If interested by this kind of analysis my new book, to be published around June-July, is titled “The Cultural Continuum” and I publish irregular articles about the subject on my blog.
@Laodan: “in [the land that eventually became?] present day China the alluvial plains were more than 100 times larger than those in the Fertile Crescent”
Thank you for that information. As a Westerner I must admit that I was surprised to find remnants of animism in Confucius; but as an African (South African) I am pleased to find that animism can have cultural continuity with progress “by add-on as in software” — or in genetic evolution, for that matter.
By the way, do you think those alluvial plains can still feed present day China? I am told that Global Warming is going to be a threat to the food supply of developed countries — and it seems that China is going to be a very developed country indeed by the time global warming kicks in.
Confucius ( Kŏng Qiū / 孔丘 ) was acutely aware of the differences between southern, northern and western shamanism. Just read him!
Civilizations originated in the fertility of alluvial plains.
The Chinese alluvial plains form over 1.5 million Sq. Km. The Tigris and Euphrates plains form some 15,000 Sq. Km. while the Nile Valley totals some 40,000 Sq. Km. The only other alluvial plain that was comparable in size to china’s was the Indus Valley that produced what some 5000 years ago was the greatest civilization. Unfortunately it collapsed because the Indus water supply dried up.
About your mentioning of “…and it seems that China is going to be a very developed country indeed by the time global warming kicks in”.
— China initially opened up and reformed for reason of survival as a nation against. Brianborou in his comment here above is right. China was indeed well aware of the Trilateral’s plans to expand the reach of Western capital to the whole world (globalization) which would have meant the dismembering of the country.
— China’s governance system is the best informed about not not only climate change but the great convergence in Late-Modernity” of multiple crises (side-effects of Modernity + re-balancing of governance-world). Their answer is “All nations on earth share a common destiny which is to build an ecological civilization for their children”
Who would not subscribe to that ?
The United States has itself to blame for its own demise. With is dollar and banker, they ruled the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States humiliated Russia with the war to dismantle Yugoslavia and destroy Serbia. We were intoxicated with hubris. We incorporated former Soviet Republic into Nato. So Russian elites found Putin. Now, the US is a spent power. Covid has exposed all of our weaknesses, yet our savage capitalist system doesn’t care. Who mourns?
I appreciated Mr. Escobar’s analysis of the Chinese People’s Conference because he gave details. I watched the BBC analysis last night which repeated “rubber stamp” and Chinese Communist Party numerous times without any details.
I wondered about his phrase “a sophisticated mix of internationalist Marxism and Confucianism”. Confucianism, yes, but internationalist Marxism? Was there any talk of internationalist Marxism at the Conference? Have you heard about “internationalist Marxism from leading Chinese authorities in the past 20 or 30 years? Is China promoting world revolution, waving the banner of “Marxism-Leninism”? Indeed, ever since the CCP’s beginning, the CCP had a rocky relationship with the Soviets and often disregarded Soviet dictates.
Good points. I would say that, no, the Chinese are not invoking Marx(ism) as they put forward and implement their plans, and rightly so. It is instructive to compare this to Russia, whose leadership also shows little interest in force-fitting Marxism onto the practicalities of successfully bringing about societal progress. I think there exists a shared, and very conscious, experience between China, Russia, and the Global South to the effect that Marxism is First World snake oil. Especially in Russia’s case, Marxism as well as Liberalism stand out as 19th century foreign imports, deeply hostile to the Russian state and people alike. Now, be sure not to jump into any unwarranted conclusions: Bolshevism and Maoism have been truly formidable harbingers of stunning progress and victories in Russia and China, but this is because they ditched the Euro-chauvinism of Marxism and wisely refuted the ”universalist” arrogance of the Marxist Euro-trash. The contrast to the Russian Liberals couldn’t possibly be starker. They remain incorrigible Western bootlickers forever.
Today, what’s truly amazing about the world’s overall political trajectory is that global justice at the expense of Western imperialism’s 500+ years of plunder, greed, and genocide is achieved very much without any ”ideological noise” from the forces of progress. This has the amusing effect of driving the forces of reaction absolutely bonkers — resorting to truly comically insane obsessions with deranged ideologies such as neoconservatism.
If you think Bolshevism and Maoism were so great (I do not), then maybe you should move to the US. We are traveling rapidly down the road, to a modern version.
@SteveK9
If you think Bolshevism and Maoism were so horrible (I do not), then maybe you should move to Russia or China for a more nuanced opinion on the subject. Moreover, what is coming your way in the US courtesy of George Soros will certainly not improve public health, public education, and end any imperialist wars, LOL.
Slightly off topic but not by much:
According to the latest (MSM) news, a considerable number of Microsoft’s customers have just suffered a concerted cyberattack by hackers who have successfully targeted Microsoft’s Outlook program. As per the MSM rumour mill:
Mind the predicate in the last sentence: accusing, not suspecting. The newsflash I watched featured the harridan Jen Psycho spouting further tripe on the subject. On second thought, a little ”payback” for Meng Wanzhou/Huawei would seem very much in order in my book.
But Confucianism tends to mold the mind towards conformity. And conformity tends to tamp down on inventiveness because it frowns on critical thinking.
How else could it be explained that China failed to make breakthroughs in two critical areas: Jet engines and chip-making machines, for so long? I am referring to top-end jet engines like the WS-15 and chip-making machines for chips less than 10 nanometers.
China will need to somehow free its best scientific minds from conformity and give them the luxury of indulging in critical thinking if China were to even dream of matching the USA in what I would call original innovation or new inventions e.g. the internet.
When the Han Dynasty adopted Confucianism as its dominant or even sole governing philosophy, Chinese inventiveness stagnated for 2000 years.
When the Qin Dynasty unified China, its industry and some aspects of its science (e.g. metallurgy, especially in chromium plating) were as advanced as that in the West in the 20th Century. But with the dominance of Confucianism beginning with the Han Dynasty which preceded the Qin Dynasty, Chinese inventiveness and original innovation stagnated. It has yet to recover. The present innovation spurt is mainly led by scientists using Western science or who have been trained in the West.
If one looks at Chinese science and knowledge before or during the Qin and after the Qin Dynasty, there is a distinct and significant difference in quality. The classical period before the Han Dynasty gave rise to distinct philosophies including Confucianism. It also gave us the short but very insightful writings on warfare by Sun Tze. And of course in mathematics, the very accurate ancient (dating back to beyond 1,500 BC) Chinese lunar calendar is one of the amplest demonstrations of their prowess.
After the Qin Dynasty i.e. beginning with the Han Dynasty, Chinese inventions, while significant (paper, gunpowder, the compass) lacks the fundamental quality of the pre-Han period in terms of fundamentally understanding how things work and therefore improving on those inventions. It was up to the West to take up the challenge, especially in gunpowder) to the detriment of China.
Confucianism is actually within the Chinese concept of the binary nature of creation i.e. everything has an opposite. (In the modern era, a binary contrast may be inferred between Relativity and Quantum physics). From this observation, they derived the first binary system which Leibniz credited the Chinese as inventing. The modern Binary system of course is the basis of modern computing.
But the system which the Han Dynasty built on Confucianism failed, due to its conforming nature, to fully appreciate the binary opposites of phenomena, even scientific phenomena, which they observed in the natural environment (or Creation to those who believe in a Creator). I believe that because of this, overall scientific progress, despite a brief spurt during the Song Dynasty which allowed some independent thinking, slowed and stagnated in China post the Qin Dynasty.
As I have posted, China has still not recovered from its post-Qin mental stagnation. And if Confucian authoritarianism is rigidly re-imposed, modern China can still, slowly but surely, slip into mental stagnation.
China must find a solution for this or slip gradually into decline . . .again.
Sure, China is going to ‘slip’ for sure. They will ‘slip’ because somehow they don’t see the brilliance of not being mentally stagnated. But we forget some things.
China increased its lead as the world’s top filer of international patents in 2020. China filed 68,720 applications while the US filed 59,230. The rate of increase was 16% YoY increase versus 3% for the US. Huawei Technologies topped the chart for fourth straight year, with 5,464.
Engines? update yourself sir. Chipmaking machines – the IP is so tied up, that one cannot move. My expectation is that China will leapfrog, or buy technology. Actually, they are on a trajectory to do both.
Universities added thirty-seven new undergraduate majors, including artificial intelligence, quantum information science, flexible electronics, and cryptography.
Sure, one day they will stagnate.
Ok, ok. But just look at the quality of the innovation coming out of China v the USA. How much of those are “original”? And some of the engineering. E.g. Nasa’s Perseverance -Mars Rover. China still has a long way to go. And Elon Musk makes rocketry, including recoverable first stage (maybe second stage as well in future) looks so easy and simple. And he uses very young engineers too. Like NASA for the Mars mission 2021. And one more point, NASA used a multi-racial team for its current mission to Mars. When will China do the same, if ever?
The USA is drawing its talents from a mass pool of over 6 billion people, including India’s population. China, so far, is only drawing its talents from 1.4 billion people, its own population.
How then could China beat the USA in high-tech competition?
“The USA is drawing its talents from a mass pool of over 6 billion people, including India’s population.”
The US may be brain-draining from all around the world, but this no longer is producing products and processes it needs for dominance.
It is 10 years behind Russia in hypersonic missiles and missile defense. It is ten years or more behind in Electronic Warfare systems.
Russia and China focus R&D on producing what they need.
The US produces what is needed for CEOs and Wall Street to earn their bonuses and for stock prices to soar.
If you look at Boeing’s 737 Max issues versus the Russia MC-21 plane solving the complete creation of all-Russian produced parts, you will understand who has the ‘brains’ and who knows what its technology sector should be doing.
China is four times what Russia is doing. Space, genetics, high speed rail, and soon semi-conductors are where China is outpacing US by large margins.
Who had 5G first? Does the US have its own 5G? No. Ericsson and Nokia have the West’s 5G. Where are all those brains?
The fact is India has produced very little new important advances for the US by means of its visa labor software talent. I could name a host of American products ruined by Indian software upgrades, make overs and “improvements”. Anyone who knows what Adobe has become understands.
And if you have ever worked with these Mumbai and Bangalore quants and Ph.D.s on projects, you will understand more. (as I have several times, a few for years.)
Quantity of a pool of talent still requires discreet selection. So the US could have 26 Billion to choose from. They eschew Russians and now are rejecting Chinese. Let’s see what impact this has on US R&D. I’m betting the US falls behind faster and wider than anyone imagines.
Boeing still has 737 Max issues. Keep that in mind. They are the pinnacle of American technology, not Starbucks with the latest latte. And Boeing is in deep trouble.
And for China to be able to accelerate to beat the US, much less sustain its current pace, China must foster critical and independent thinking, at least for its scientists!
Sorry, the “Anonymous” is me Simon Chow. Forgot to key in my identity.
Thank you for telling us that Simon. Much appreciated. But, my question, if all confucianism goes, what is left to guide from a social spiritual perspective?
amarynth, I think that I have an answer to the social spiritual perspective bit. But for me, it’s more a matter for prayer.
But Confucianism need not go in its entirety. It has a good basis for social harmony, both for society and interpersonal relationships. And conformity is good for implementation and social order only up to a point. It must not be used to cover up a serious rankle.
Confucian conformism is good as a system of governance for a large country like China. But for scientific progress and breakthrough innovation? My answer is no if it is extended to curb critical thinking, at least critical scientific thinking.
For science to progress, it must always observe the facts and critically evaluate and test any interpretation of the facts. Science will not brook conformity for the sake of “harmony”, especially conformity that is not in harmony with the facts. And if one think about it, neither would society brook conformity that is not in harmony with the facts, especially conformity imposed from above. At least not indefinitely.
And a further point: Confucian authoritarianism (or any form of authoritarianism for that matter) will tend to force its subjects into group-think. And group-think will tend to give rise to various forms of the “emperor’s new clothes” syndrome.
”But Confucianism tends to mold the mind towards conformity. And conformity tends to tamp down on inventiveness because it frowns on critical thinking.”
Your mind is certainly molded towards conformity. Plus your inventiveness proved insufficient even for adding a lousy signature. In short: A little too confused to opine on sophisticated people such as Confucius and China. China proves you, well, not exactly up-to-date.
Before anyone could claim the Chinese technologists are somehow too “conformist” to build competitive high-tech jet engines, as you claim, there are other more obvious and more quantifiable explanations. They are incredibly difficult to design and to produce. It’s common knowledge that the complexity of the jet engine equals everything else in the airplane, including all the avionics. How many world-class manufacturers of jet engines are there ? Pratt & Whitney and General Electric in the US. Rolls Royce and Airbus in Europe. Russia has caught up by now, after the knock-out of the 1990’s, but it took them 20 years and it’s worth noting that only the jet engines were the last to become once again competitive. If it were not for the circa 2014 wake-up call of the US “Pacific Pivot” threat, the Chinese would have been happy to buy jet engines from the West. So China has only had about 7 years to get going, and probably at first they were content to just buy whatever Russia could produce. With supercomputers, the design process will go quickly, but the manufacturing is also incredibly hard. Just ask Prat & Whitney about producing their PW1400’s which have all been grounded.
If you are looking to prove your “conformity” thesis, you need to find a different example. I think what you proved is your lack of technical depth.
Cosimo, the conformity in the West, due to generations of brain-washing propaganda, is in many ways worse than Confucian conformity. I suspect that, on reflection, I myself, having been educated in a Western country, was a victim of Western propaganda brain-washing. That is one of the reasons why, especially in the USA, innovation is flattening. More and more, the USA is relying on foreign talent to sustain its innovative edge.
As for China’s difficulty in mastering jet engines and chip-fabricating machine technology, its difficulty seems to me is more due to a mental block that comes from insufficient critical thinking ability. It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of mindset.
A mindset trained and nurtured to conform for the sake of political/social survival or any other reason will have great difficulties to see beyond the boundaries of its conformity. It will see what it is pre-programmed to see.
I once was assigned to resolve a flood problem. The previous person in charge proceeded to tell me what he thinks is the cause of the problem with the unstated sub-conscious assumption as to where the floodwaters were coming from.
I have to get him to stop with the reason that a new person must have a new way of looking at the problem. And sure enough, the previous team had completely misunderstood a fundamental aspect of the issue – where the floodwaters were actually coming from. After this, it was a cinch for me to stop the flooding for good.
Time and again, I have, using my advantage of having a hybrid mindset of both East and West, resolved problems in agriculture, complex software, field applications and finance that have daunted other professionals for months, in both the West and the East. And resolved them sometimes in a matter of minutes. The difficulty has more to do with mental blocks due to a conformed mindset than the complexity of the problems or the lack of intelligence/common sense.
That is why I said that China must promote critical thinking among its young. Critical thinking should not lead to social instability if the political leadership is wise not to feel threatened and resolve problems so identified efficiently. It should instead lead to greater social stability based on better and faster social-economic progress.
For this to happen, even the Chinese leadership at all levels will need to possess the requisite critical thinking ability and not just conformity. It should know when and what to conform in accordance to Confucianism and when and what not to conform.
And how to develop such discernment? My answer: moral values-based critical thinking inculcated right from childhood.
Simon, it is good that you are making efforts to think critically and thinking ahead for China. But you should not jump into conclusion too fast (better to pose your thought as questions or hypothesis and have open mind to listen to contradictory views). This is true especially for complicated and interdisciplinary topics like the role of Confucianism in creative thinking and the history of Chinese technology development that you seem to have only superficial understanding. Doing so (asserting false or sweeping conclusion) may actually hurt the goal (helping China) that you wanted.
No offence, just a friendly advice.
d dan, I can only base my conclusions on the outcome of 2,000 years of China under Confucianism: 2,000 of stagnation of mental slumber/stagnation.
Can China adopt Confucianism again, especially Confucian authoritarianism and virtually without modification and expect a different outcome?
And if you know so much about the role of Confucianism in “creative thinking” why not share it for discussion in this forum? Instead of sheltering behind a mask of “I know better” Confucian scholar-like arrogance?
Thanks for your advice but no thanks.😁
Also please share your take on “the history of Chinese technological development” that you implied to have great knowledge about. Share it do that it can be examined critically.
And d dan, at the end of the Qin dynasty in 206 BC, China’s industry and technology were about 2,000 years ahead of the rest of the world.
How come after adopting Confucianism for 2,000 years beginning with the Han dynasty, China lost its 2,000 year lead, fell behind and was given a very humiliating hiding by the British in the Opium war of 1840 and again in 1858-60?
Since you implied that you possess such great knowledge, please give your explanation for discussion.😀
Simon Chow says: “How come after adopting Confucianism for 2,000 years beginning with the Han dynasty, China lost its 2,000 year lead, fell behind and was given a very humiliating hiding by the British in the Opium war of 1840 and again in 1858-60?”
1. This is a very weak link and unsound logical deduction. The two events (Han adoption of Confucianism and Opium wars) do NOT imply a cause-effect relationship. In fact, the reverse question is even more reasonable: if Confucianism was the cause of China’s falling behind, why did it take almost 2,000 years for that to show?
2. I hope you know China still retained many technological edges over the West during most of those 2,000 years history, e.g. as late as the 1800s, Chinese porcelain, tea processing techniques and silk making were still the best in the world, so coveted that they caused severe drain to the British trade balance. You must also heard of Zheng He’s ship building was well ahead of the rest of the world. All these examples were in addition to the long list of technological advances and achievements from China for 2,000 years, e.g. financial instruments like paper money [1] and notes, herbal medicine and knowledge that are still being harvested today by both Chinese and Western researchers [2, 3], leading edge math research (e.g. the Chinese Remainder Theorem [4], Yang Hui triangle [5], a.k.a Pascal triangle, calculation of pi by Liu Hui [6], Zu Chongzhi [7,8]), unparalleled precision in astronomical observation and knowledge (e.g. Zhang Heng [9], Yu Xi 虞喜 [10, 11]), innovative architectural design ([12. 13]). I could go on for two hours to type out other innovations in agriculture, military, infrastructure, … I refer interested readers to consult Joseph Needham’s multi-volume treatise on ancient Chinese sciences and technologies [14]. For a modern presentation of ancient Chinese inventions and innovative culture, I recommend the book by professor 江晓原 from the School of History and Culture of Science from Shanghai Jiao Tong University [15 – in Chinese]. Also, he has a series of lectures to explain many of those ancient technological and scientific achievements [16, 17 – in Chinese] in the context of Chinese traditional culture and environment.
So ask yourself, if adopting Confucianism in Han was the pivotal reason for Chinese falling behind in sciences and technologies, why were there still so many world class and revolutionary ideas coming out from China since then for over 1,000 years?
3. Confucianism promotes meritocracy, an important attributes for the advancement of sciences and learning. Confucius invented the revolutionary idea to replace nobility of blood with nobility of virtue. Confucius was the first in the world to found a private school over 2000 years ago, without the support of any government fund. Further, he proposed the idea (有教无类) that all people, regardless of status, class or background (even for slave), should be allowed to receive education. It was an idea that was so well ahead of time. In addition, he did not require any students to pay any tuition – everyone could pay according to what they could afford: a piece of silver, a sack of rice, some chores or nothing at all. The combination of free, universal and private education was never caught on until the 20th century. Those innovative social and educational ideas are recognized today to be the key driving forces of modernization and sciences.
Don’t just take my words for it, listen to what Confucius and his followers had to say about study, research, learning (my rough translation):
知之为知之,不知为不知,是知也。《论语·为政》
Know what you know, acknowledge what you don’t know, that is the step to real wisdom.
学而不思则罔,思而不学则怠。《论语·为政》
Studying without thinking will not give you anything. But thinking without studying will just let you become tired [and gain nothing].
[My words: independent thinking should be added to the study of foundational knowledge]
问与学,相辅而行者也,非学无以致疑,非问无以广识。清·刘开《孟涂文集·问说》
Learning and inquiry should complement each other. Without learning there will not be questions. Without inquiring there will not be knowledge.
[My words: Learning and research should play complementary roles in one’s knowledge acquisition]
敏而好学,不耻下问。《论语·公冶长》
Smart and studious person will not feel learning from low-ranking as a shame.
[My words: learn from whoever you can learn from. These words contradict the often erroneous interpretation that Confucianism inhibits creativity because of hierarchy.]
There is a paragraph within Confucian writing that describes an occasion when two students asked exactly the same question but Confucius gave radically different answers. When asked by a third student the reason for the different answers, Confucius explained that because the situations for the two students were different, so they each deserved a different answer. This example shows that Confucius actually emphasized personalized teaching and encourage individuality – contradicts again the often description that Confucianism encourages conformist.
The following is the view of Professor Charlene Tan [18] from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore about the role of Confucian in critical and creative thinking:
“Within the Confucian canon, two texts, Analects (Lunyu) and Xueji (Record of Learning), are particularly instructive in illuminating the principles and practices of education for early Confucianism. …. A textual analysis of Xueji and Analects reveals that critical and creative thinking are valued and indispensable in Confucian education. Confucius himself chastised the rulers of his time, modified certain social practices, and ingeniously redefined terms that were in wide circulation such as li and junzi by adding novel elements to them.”
Finally, Chinese government has named their overseas Chinese educational program the Confucius Institute. So clearly they also disagree with you that Confucianism is harmful to China’s progress.
4. Lest you think that Confucianism is a backward and outdated philosophy. In the 1800s, Confucianism was thought to be more advance in concept, morality and teaching than those available in Europe. Translations of Confucian texts influenced European thinkers of the period, particularly among the Deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Western civilization. [19]
French writer and philosopher Voltaire was a staunch supporter of Confucianism. He wanted to use Confucianism as an ideological weapon against European monarchy under theocratic rule. Voltaire saw the concept of Confucian rationalism as an alternative to Christian dogma. He praised Confucian ethics and politics, portraying the sociopolitical hierarchy of China as a model for Europe.
“Confucius has no interest in falsehood; he did not pretend to be prophet; he claimed no inspiration; he taught no new religion; he used no delusions; flattered not the emperor under whom he lived…” by Voltaire
With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional Ancient Régime of Europe. Voltaire wrote favorably of the idea, claiming that the Chinese had “perfected moral science” and advocating an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese.[19]
Neo-Confucianism also became the basis for the German philosopher and mathematician Leibniz to establish classical philosophy and used it to oppose the apocalyptic theology of the Roman Holy Court. [20,21] Leibniz read Confucius Sinarum Philosophus in the first year of its publication. He came to the conclusion that Europeans could learn much from the Confucian ethical tradition. Some Westerners pointed out that traditional Chinese culture represented by Confucianism was a spiritual driving force for the formation and development of European capitalist society in the 17th and 18th centuries.
5. About the great debate of why did China fell behind in its technological race in the last 300 – 400 years. To place your assertion in proper context, this debate had been going on since the late Qinq, so it lasted over 100 years. In the early 1900s, many prominent western educated intellects blamed the Chinese language – the script hindered the spread of knowledge (May Fourth movement), so they advocated abandoning the Chinese writing system in favor of romanized language like Korean and Vietnamese, or at least a hybrid system like the Japanese. Other political scientists believed it was due to the lack of democracy and the system of constitutional republic – the idea gained so much momentum that the late Qing was thinking of adopting a form of Constitutional monarchy reform. Others think it was because of the Mandarin system of official selection Keju 科举. Some Han nationalists blamed the corrupted “low IQ” Manchus rulers. Yet other thought it was because Chinese did not develop the system of intellectual property rights and protections. A few thought that it was due the single event of falling behind in industrial revolution (which in terms, was explained by the high productivity and self-sufficiency of Chinese agriculture and rural industries at that time). Educationist and teachers thought it was the educational system that encouraged rote learning and discouraged creative thinking. And many more that attributed to the various aspects of Chinese culture, including Confucianism, feudal system, the religion/superstition, the lack of individual freedom, etc. Some White supremacists even explained this with IQ and genes. Yet some thought it was the faults of communists, KMT, warlords, … etc.
In my opinion, all these are just partial and reactionary interpretation of situations in China at that time. China’s falling behind were due to the confluence of many factors, almost all by human decisions that could also go in the right ways with wiser people. Corrupted, arrogant and closed minded rulers and decision makers thought that there were nothing to gain from sciences, nothing to learn from foreigners and nothing to improve from their systems. China was a vast country with fragmentary interests, proud traditions and strong local independent forces. So it was extremely difficult for reformists to succeed in transforming a vast and diverse country. This let to decades of revolutions, unrests, civil wars and stagnation. Furthermore, the disunity and backwardness were thoroughly exploited by some foreign imperialists and opportunists.
In the final analysis, culture, Confucianism , language, philosophy etc are simply tools. For China, these are powerful and highly developed tools. In the control of skillful handlers, they helped to keep China dominant for most of the 2,000 years in economy, science, technology, military, and others. In the misuses, abuses and mismanagement of unskilled or unwise handlers, it should not be surprising that they created the opposite effects. Ultimately, ask the question in reverse again: do you expect Confucianism and Chinese culture should be so perfect that they should prevent all human errors and keep China dominant 100% of the time, irrespective of the stupidity and greed of human beings?
References: (some refs are in Chinese)
1. The History of Paper Money in China
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3217743?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
2. 《中医中药、针灸防治疟疾研究规划方案》第二项为“民间防治疟疾有效药物和疗法的重点调查研究”。该方案的备注中列出了根据文献调查提出的作为重点研究的药物,
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%9D%92%E8%92%BF%E7%B4%A0
3. Ancient Chinese texts inspired Tu You You’s Nobel-prize winning medicine search
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-34451386
4. 《孫子算經 – Sunzi Suan Jing》 original text of the Chinese Remainder Theorem
https://ctext.org/sunzi-suan-jing
5. Yang Hui triangle 杨辉三角
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%9D%A8%E8%BE%89%E4%B8%89%E8%A7%92
6. 刘徽 Liu Hui
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Hui
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%88%98%E5%BE%BD/42748
7. 祖冲之 Zu Chongzhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zu_Chongzhi
https://www.newasiabooks.com/subject/maths/learn_maths/learn_maths_3a_0626.htm
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%A5%96%E5%86%B2%E4%B9%8B/121104
8. Explanation of Zu Chongzhi’s method to calculate pi
https://web.math.sinica.edu.tw/math_media/d251/25110.pdf
9. 张衡 Zhang Heng
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%BC%A0%E8%A1%A1/8398
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Heng
10. Yu_Xi discovered the precession of the equinoxes, independently of the earlier ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus. He also postulated that the Earth could be spherical in shape instead of being flat and square, long before the idea became widely accepted in Chinese science with the advances in circumnavigation by Europeans from the 15-20th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Xi
11. 虞喜(公元281–356年),字仲,会稽余姚(今浙江余姚)人,东晋天文学家,宣夜说的继承和发展者。 虞喜治学的最大特点是:敢于突破樊篱,不受前人观点束缚。比如在天文学研究中,他对我国古代学者创立的“浑天说”、“盖天说”、“宣夜说”提出许多怀疑,并一一阐述了自己的见解。在 “偭规越矩”中,他发现了岁差、求出了比较精确的岁差值。
http://www.gerenjianli.com/Mingren/05/a574m186a3p76pa.html
12. Ancient Chinese architectural innovations: dou and gong 斗拱:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vRIuAOrZgo
13. The dou and gong can be stacked up for endless combinations of structures and usage, individually decorated for various beautiful patterns and cultural symbolisms, and are light, modular, easy to make, transport and assemble. Furthermore, they are incredibly stable. Considering:
1. the construction of the whole Forbidden City did not require a single nail, screw nor glue (innovation), and yet
2. the Forbidden City had withstood all major earthquakes in the last few hundred years, including the largest one in 20th century. Modern simulation shows that it can withstand beyond 9.5 earthquake – the largest ever recorded in human history!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w78Yb_aotH0
14. Multi-volume series of books on “Science and Civilisation in China” by Joseph Needham
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Civilisation-China-Introductory-Orientations/dp/052105799X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Science+and+Civilisation+in+China&qid=1615176976&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Civilisation-History-Scientific-Thought/dp/0521058007/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Science+and+Civilisation+in+China&qid=1615176976&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/Shorter-Science-Civilisation-China-published/dp/B00Y2QPNUA/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=Science+and+Civilisation+in+China&qid=1615176976&sr=8-5
15. 《中国古代技术文化》 by 江晓原 discusses an amazing ancient theory of the universe in China. How did Chinese discovered the weather cycles? How did Chinese inventions blasted the European knight class to pieces? Is there a theory of round earth in ancient China? What exactly is Chinese medicine? ——Reflecting on the great achievements of ancient China, making detailed investigations, removing the false and keeping the truth, and inspiring readers’ proper attitude towards traditional culture.
https://book.douban.com/subject/27108648/
16. 江晓原-关于“四大发明”的争议和思考: video lecture on the debate of the 4 great inventions
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1jE411876T?from=search&seid=7155199782838370766
17. 江晓原:中国古代的技术奇迹及其启示: video lecture about ancient Chinese technological miracles and their inspirations
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1oD4y1m76U?from=search&seid=7155199782838370766
18. Confucianism and Education by Charlene Tan
https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-226
19. Voltaire and Confucianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire#Confucianism
20. Leibniz’s Interpretation of Neo-Confucianism
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397760?seq=1
21. Leibniz, China, and the Problem of Pagan Wisdom
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/591609
Leibniz was convinced that the essentials of Christianity (and the Platonic-Pythagorean philosophy) and Chinese thought and religious practices are commonly held in both cultures in the form of the basic principles of natural religion and that commonality would make the Chinese to accept more easily Christianity and lead to a convergence and cross-fertilization of ‘East’ and ‘West’. Moreover he envisioned (and prepared the ground for) the role of Russia as the mediator of it.
I am not sure whether Leibniz was right or wrong about the commonalities of “Christianity and Chinese thought”. But what is virtually certain is that Christianity i.e. the Gospel is still spreading like wildfires in China, even during the pandemic.
Leibniz was sure that there were in China buried intellectual, scientific treasures, still untapped, even forgotten by the Chinese themselves, that remained to be unearthed by a common effort of the ‘West’ and ‘East’. He was not trapped in the mental cage in which the ‘West’ locked itself, of the ‘immutability’ and aloofness of Chinese civilization, of its radical alienness, of its ‘innate’ incapacity to change and progress. Leibniz was going beyond the label ‘Confucianism’.
As to the spread of the ‘Gospel’ in China, I could see it with my own eyes. I could see a number of churches (one in in the very middle of Beijing). I met personally Orthodox Chinese and their Chinese Orthodox (‘Russian’) priest (serving at times in Chinese!). Dressed in the priestly garb he was almost indistinguishable from a mandarin!
Praise the Lord! Let’s keep praying for China, Russia, even the US and the West. In fact the entire world. We all need the grace of God even just to survive!
Thank you d dan for your lengthy scholarly reply. I shall answer point for point and then conclude.
Let me begin with a quote:
“And further, by these my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” – King Solomon circa about 800 BC.
1) a) It is not a “weak link”. Confucian China, at the height of its glory was given a prolonged beating for 100 years. And even then, it was not woken up by Confucianism or even neo-Confucianism but by an alien philosophy – Marxism, which Mao adapted to suit China’s circumstances.
b) There was certainly a cause and effect relationship between China’s mental stagnation and Confucianism. Confucian China slowed down, virtually stagnated and allowed the West to catch up and overtake – surrendering a 2,000 year lead in economy, industry, science, including in the social sciences and technology. A modern analogy is the collapse of the USSR due to a flaw in its application of Marxist economic theory. China learned from this and quickly adapted Maoism-Communism to become Socialism with Chinese characteristics. This freed up the innate economic capability of the Chinese.
c) Why it took 2,000 years to show? That’s because it took almost 2,000 years for the West to catch up with and overtake China. Also the effect of Confucian mental stagnation was delayed by the brief spurt of innovation during the pacifist Song dynasty when liberal, independent and critical thinking was allowed. That was when printing, gunpowder, the magnetic compass, paper, even the beginnings of the internal combustion engine, ship-building with watertight interlocking compartments, etc were invented. Pacifist Song China shot ahead of the rest of the world by 500 years. But what Song achieved, the Qin was already in the position to achieve in 221 BC but for the burning of science books and the subsequent imposition of strict Confucianism by the Han.
d) The Mongols under Genghis Khan and his sons and grandsons, the Mongol Yuan dynasty and the Ming dynasty were the main and immediate beneficiaries of Song Dynasty technology. The Mongols used gunpowder weapons and the Chinese reflex bow to conquer and the Ming used Song shipbuilding technology to construct Admiral Zheng He’s fleets and equipped them with the world’s then most powerful cannons.
e) But the Ming Fleets stopped abruptly because the conservative Confucian court advisors won over the Emperor against the Eunuchs who were the proponents of the Ming naval expeditions in the first place. From then on, Ming China declined.
2) a) I am well aware that China retained a technological edge over the West till the end of the 17th century. That was when the West caught up, after Luther’s Protestant Reformation, by copying and improving on Chinese technology and then overtook China as a result of the Industrial revolution.
b) But the point is that Chinese innovation in science and technology in 2,000 years after the adoption of Confucianism was far less than the West’s advances in science and technology in the 300 years since the end of the 17th century. Or for that matter, Western advances in science and technology in 300 years were likely far more than that of China during the whole 5,000 years of Chinese civilization, bar forgotten advances by China if any. Why was this so?
And by reimposing Confucianism, is not China setting itself up for a repeat performance? (Even today, most of the good ideas have emanated and are emanating from Europe – e.g. the Fourth Industrial Revolution – first mooted and implemented by Germany).
c) Innovation under Confucian authoritarian conformism was far too slow and inadequate to serve China and was tantamount to mental stagnation. Surely the resulting virtual mental stagnation had shown that Confucian philosophy is flawed somewhere. If so, what and where is the flaw?
3) a) I know that Confucius promotes meritocracy. The problem lies in the what as in what is meritocracy, and the how as in how to promote “meritocracy” once defined. Confucian meritocracy centered on scholastic excellence and the “how” of promoting it is centered on very tough exams. Memorization prowess in such exams is key. Analysis, originality and understanding were not prominent and if emphasized, is confined within Confucianism and the ‘classics’. Science and technology were not emphasized.
b) In the absence of objective fact-based analysis and understanding, subjectivity creeps in. Whatever the great Confucian teacher said cannot be questioned (without consequence) and must be considered correct. I have seen this happened in a strict Confucian society. But I shall not name the country since that country (not China) is very sensitive. Suffice it is for me to cite from your reference to Confucius above:
Confucius gave different answers to two students who asked the same question and justified his action by citing their different circumstances. I do not know what question was asked. Maybe it was a philosophical question. But logically, one cannot give two different values for the same question as to what is 2 + 2 equals to? Such Confucian logic cannot be used for studying science and technology.
I shall not comment on why the Chinese government set up the Confucius Institutes. I am tempted to give a slant to it, that can further raise US paranoia, in the context of this debate but I shall not (hahaha!). The Chinese government may just want to exhibit traditional Chinese culture and civilisation using Confucianism – which action I think is harmless.
4) a) Philosophers like Confucius, Voltaire and Rousseau etc can be put in the same category. Their philosophies all have the same assumption: that man can be made good and behave right by their teachings, which they claim are sound.
Confucius never venture into the spiritual realm. As a result, he did not and cannot feed the Chinese soul. China, beginning with the Han dynasty, was a somewhat soulless civilisation until Buddhism came along and filled in some, but not all the gaps that traditional Chinese pantheism could not.
Voltaire etc, being sons of the so-called Enlightenment rejected the God of Luther’s Protestant Reformation which gave them the freedom of thinking, writing and speaking in the first place, without being burnt at the stake by the Roman Catholic authorities for heresy. I have more respect for Leibniz, whose mathematical logic somewhat prevented him from straying too much or at all, into the realm of sub-conscious self-deification.
b) But what if Voltaire, Confucius et al were all wrong about the nature of Mankind? What if Mankind cannot be made good without divine intervention as Luther insisted? Is that why we saw the indiscriminate slaughter which flowed from the logic of the ‘Enlightenment’ as for example, from Rosseau’s emotion arousing slogan: “man is born free but everywhere he is in chains”?
c) But I do know that in the modern era, those enlightenment philosophers who used Confucianism to justify modern capitalism as practised by Europe and then by the US-led world economy, were wrong. Capital is only just another tool, one of the factors of production. But glorifying it led to unbridled greed and extreme inequality, now most visible in the USA.
Conclusion: So you really do not know why China squandered a 2,000 year lead in industry, engineering, science and technology, fell well behind and was given 100-plus year beating for its Confucian arrogance as a result?
If so, why risk another 100 years of beating or worse by advocating Confucianism again? Confucianism was directly implicated in the fall and decline of at least two dynasties – the most recent ones, of China – the Ming and the Qing. In the case of the Qing, it as a very catastrophic decline causing the violent and premature deaths of at least over 150 million Chinese up to 1953.
The Confucianists of the Qing should have known better. When Lord Macartney came asking for trade in 1796, he anchored two British man-of-war in Tianjin – the 64-cannon HMS Lion and the 56-cannon HMS Hindostan. These two warships alone, and they were not even the best that the British had at the time, would have been enough the sink the entire Qing navy and devastated the entire coastal shipping of the Qing Empire in 1796.
But the Confucian advisors-ministers of the Qing court could not comprehend the implications of the warships. Neither could they comprehend the implications of the advanced industrial goods brought by Macartney and presented to the Qing court at the time. They were too blinded by their sense of superiority – likely reinforced in their sight by the splendour of the old summer palace – the Yuanmingyuan. The world had changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution, and these architectural wonders meant next to nothing except to feed Confucian pride. The Yunmingyuan was of course burnt down and looted by Anglo-French forces in the 2nd Opium War of 1858-60. The ruins remained as a permanent unerasable scar on Confucian pride.
Why then did not Confucian Qing China see what is so blindingly exhibited in their sight by Lord Macartney?! My answer: Their blindness was induced by Confucian conformity. They were so sure of Confucian China’s superiority that they can’t see their inferiority.
I have posted before that Confucian authoritarian conformity leads to Confucian group- think and Confucian group-think leads to various manifestations of Hans Christensen’s Emperor’s ‘new’ clothes syndrome. China was very vulnerably naked even in 1796, i.e. forty-four years before the 1st Opium War, more than enough time to prepare, and Confucian China failed to see it!
The roar of British cannons called the bluff on Qing China’s Confucian superiority and discredited Confucianism as a philosophy for progress and in my view, even for governance if without major modification. Yet China clinged to Confucianism for another 100 years of beating. China was rescued by Mao who adapted an alien philosophy to China – Marxism.
China now seems to be resurrecting Confucianism as a method of governance. China must be careful to meticulously dissect Confucianism, know what to retain, what to discard and what to adapt. Otherwise, by adopting Confucianism again as a governing philosophy, China risk sliding into mental stagnation and decline, again,
I woud like to add in 4) b) above: If Voltaire, Confucius et al were wrong in assuming that Mankind could be made good by their teachings alone i.e. without divine intervention as Luther insisted, what then is the use of their teachings/philosophies? If their assumptions about human nature are wrong, their teachings would be useless and worthless.
@ Simon Chow
The Confucianism advocacy here stems from Han nationalists and sycophants who believe that their original Confucianist culture is the best ever, and now they are trying to get back to it so they can LARP as the great Han or great Ming dynasty, or try to make a connection that Marxism is Confucianism all along (never mind that Confucianism is a class collaboration, bureaucrat-heavy ideology).
It’s all deluded people, but you will see more and more of them as mainland chinese try to obfuscate that their success is from Marxism, a jewish or foreign ideology.
I myself do not trust Christianity & Catholicism either, I believe human nature is entirely malleable, as proven by how brainwashed the americans can be. What matters is what you teach them with, you can teach them to follow their own interests and industrialize and be strong and be prosperous, or you can teach them to be docile slaves who worship their master.
@ Smith. If they LARP like the Han or Ming or Qing, then “they” will likely face a demise like the Han, Ming or Qing – all victims of Confucianism.
Confucianism does have some attraction for the governing authorities and not just in China and its rebellious province of Taiwan.
First of all, it can legitimise the established governing authorities. Everybody falls in line. This has some strengths as demonstrated by how China gained victory over covid-19. But no good when it comes to science and technology. One cannot simply accept something as science-based solely on opinion. Science is always testing and attempting to prove wrong accepted scientific dogma. Even Einstein’s General Relativity. Only two universal sceintific laws that I know of, have withstood all the tests and challenges so far – the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But testing and challenging is anathema to Confucian dogma.
Secondly, Confucianism is a social sedative. It can be used to make people “harmonious”, thereby making them easier to govern. Qing China was observed by Napoleon to be asleep. That’s why he was reported to have said: “. . . let China sleep …”
As far as the “malleability” of human nature is concerned, Confucius himself deemed it to be positively malleable, especially the young.
My own opinion is that this is true only in a limited sense. No matter how well brought up a child is, there is nothing, except the threat of punishment, to prevent him from putting his hand in the till so to speak, once he is grown up or even before.
But the overwhelming evidence to date shows that human nature can be infinitely malleable in the negative. Proof? In the 1930s, a not well-educated ex-corporal from the German army was able to use hate-speech to turn an otherwise sophisticated, highly intelligent and cultured people in a raging, hate-filled, prejudiced nation and turned their hatred towards starting WW2. The Germans, prior to WW2 were seduced to be “docile slaves who worship their master” – Adolf Hitler.
So your statement “What matters is what you teach them with” also rest on the false assumption (like Confucious, Voltaire et al) that human nature can be made good with the ‘right’ teaching without the need for divine intervention – unlike Luther of the Protestant Reformation fame, who insisted that human nature cannot be made good without divine redemption i.e. intervention.
@ d dan
Ah yes, the height of chinese “technology”, porcelain and silk, luxuries that are useless otherwise.
How much the world could do with these “technology”.
Zheng He’s fleet is also a brown water navy that have to travel by the coast, is it big? Yes, it’s also absolutely primitive.
Sorry Smith, Zheng He’s fleets need not travel by the coast. He had the magnetic compass and could navigate by the stars.
He sailed across the Indian Ocean to the east coast of Africa. That much can be proven. But there are also evidence that his fleets, or part of his fleets went beyond Africa. And to Australia.
Those records of Zheng He’s travels were destroyed by the Confucianists-dominated court after the death of the Emperor Zhu De (or Yung Lo). Also his ships.
Such were the destructiveness of the Confucianists.
I do agree that Zheng He fleet made dash between the Indian ocean and Africa, as it was shown in the charts nowadays.
https://www.ancient.eu/img/r/p/750×750/10022.png?v=1569516139
But there’s no evidence he visited Australia, and his voyages takes years to complete, and indeed travels by the coast most of the times. Unfortunately, all of his ships are destroyed, so there’s not even evidences of them aside from cultural relics in the SEA and chinese records.
About the human nature, true, humanity can be made evil, but I don’t believe it needs divine intervention to be made good, even some of the german post-WW2 or members of the Wehrmatch joined East Germany, or went to the Middle East to fight against zionists. I believe the key is understanding and education.
You don’t believe you need divine intervention for humanity to be made good? That it is a matter of “understanding and education”?
Then as you place your bets on and pursue your theory of “understanding and education” based on your assumption that human nature can be made good without divine intervention, please keep at least one eye focused on what the Bible says:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?” – Jeremiah 17:9.
“For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, slander.” – Jesus Christ in Matthew 15:9.
The Bible has many other verses like these.
Comparing the Chinese leadership with the Western leaders, especially the USA (with Israel in tow) the later are barbaric and stupid. The EU is sleepwalking. There is an infantilism showing up by the western oligarchs since they corrupt everybody with their cheap money and with the help of their fist they eliminate moral considerations. The end of western Enlightenment were the two World Wars. Such a bloodshed showed us that Enlightenment was never a deep human enterprise. Now, eyes are wide shut under such a barbaric outcome. Can China together with Russia avert the catastrophic deeds of those psychopaths in Washington I look forward to the East.
”What’s ultimately at stake in this competition between wobbly Western (neo)liberal democracies and ’socialism with Chinese characteristics’ (copyright Deng Xiaoping) is the capacity to manage and improve people’s lives.”
With the West’s pathetic ”leadership” committed to the cult of greed, corruption, ignorance, and full-on malevolent incompetence — neoliberalism — we can say that it actually has no incentive to manage and improve people’s lives. This comes as a brutal shock to what used to be its mass base. Some prefer not to admit it, resorting instead to clichés about Western superiority and keeping their eyes firmly shut with regard to Russia and China. The competition is over. 30 years after its near total victory, the West is facing a truly horrendous dissolution as a result of its defeat at the hands of the adversaries it thought were vanquished forever.