NYT: China Needs a Confucian Government

[fgalkin]

So, he's basically the Chinese equivalent of Rushdoony?

That's hilarious.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zixinus]

Are you talking to me, or in reference to the article? Because one of the authors of the article doesn't sound like a Westerner.

I am talking about the author of the article.

[PainRack]

So, he's basically the Chinese equivalent of Rushdoony?

That's hilarious.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Well, look at it this way, New Confucianism has discarded much of the baggage of sexism, and even incorporated stuff like democracy.

The ideas could even be argued to be "progressive", compared to the system of thoughts under Mao.

[PainRack]

Are you talking to me, or in reference to the article? Because one of the authors of the article doesn't sound like a Westerner.

I am talking about the author of the article.

Google shows that
http://danielabell.com/

Daniel A. Bell is the Zhiyuan Chair Professor of Arts and Humanities at Shanghai Jiaotong University and professor of political theory and director of the Center for International and Comparative Political Philosophy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

[Ralin]

You're referring to the much older Imperial exams during the Sui and subsequent dynasties. Later exams for military officials included the practical display of skills such as the six arts(Archery, horse riding, calligraphy and etc), as can be derived from the legends of Yue Fei.

Ah, thank you. I was going off of summaries I'd heard from teachers of mine; I've never actually read up on the examination system. I probably should.

[PainRack]

You're referring to the much older Imperial exams during the Sui and subsequent dynasties. Later exams for military officials included the practical display of skills such as the six arts(Archery, horse riding, calligraphy and etc), as can be derived from the legends of Yue Fei.

Ah, thank you. I was going off of summaries I'd heard from teachers of mine; I've never actually read up on the examination system. I probably should.

Probably not their fault, I'm not that well read on the examinations myself. The Imperial Examinations were different based on the dynasties and condensing all that information into a class lecture had to be difficult.

For example, regarding written Chinese vs Spoken chinese, its not as huge a problem as you point out because Chinese isn't phonetic. As long as the characters were the same, it didn't matter that you spoke it differently, well, I'm speaking on general terms here. In the modern context, different dialects does alter the grammar/words marginally, no idea how it affected Imperial scholars.

Well, there were criticism during the Tang dynasty, because there was an oral exposition during the exam. Turns out that not everybody speaks the same "dialect" of Chinese so........ yeah.

Most of what I posted is from the Song/Ming dynasty, so, it ignores the different context during earlier dynasties. The Imperial examinations was first codiefied during the Sui dynasty, which is where the first official texts came from, although I believe that even here, it may had changed from ruler to ruler.

One thing I can't figure out is how the Imperial examinations suppressed thinking and was too mechanical, this when the subject matter supposedly tested history, maths, agriculture and taxation policy. Perhaps this was with regards to how only "official" Confucian views about certain matters were the correct answers...... But then again, you then have all this neo Confucianism schools that changed every few centuries or so with different emphasis on different texts so................... shrug. I'm not a historian.

[Zixinus]

Are you talking to me, or in reference to the article? Because one of the authors of the article doesn't sound like a Westerner.

I am talking about the author of the article.

Google shows that
http://danielabell.com/

Daniel A. Bell is the Zhiyuan Chair Professor of Arts and Humanities at Shanghai Jiaotong University and professor of political theory and director of the Center for International and Comparative Political Philosophy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

While I admit that I was wrong, this makes it even worse.

[Blayne]

Probably not their fault, I'm not that well read on the examinations myself. The Imperial Examinations were different based on the dynasties and condensing all that information into a class lecture had to be difficult.

For example, regarding written Chinese vs Spoken chinese, its not as huge a problem as you point out because Chinese isn't phonetic. As long as the characters were the same, it didn't matter that you spoke it differently, well, I'm speaking on general terms here. In the modern context, different dialects does alter the grammar/words marginally, no idea how it affected Imperial scholars.

Well, there were criticism during the Tang dynasty, because there was an oral exposition during the exam. Turns out that not everybody speaks the same "dialect" of Chinese so........ yeah.

Most of what I posted is from the Song/Ming dynasty, so, it ignores the different context during earlier dynasties. The Imperial examinations was first codiefied during the Sui dynasty, which is where the first official texts came from, although I believe that even here, it may had changed from ruler to ruler.

One thing I can't figure out is how the Imperial examinations suppressed thinking and was too mechanical, this when the subject matter supposedly tested history, maths, agriculture and taxation policy. Perhaps this was with regards to how only "official" Confucian views about certain matters were the correct answers...... But then again, you then have all this neo Confucianism schools that changed every few centuries or so with different emphasis on different texts so................... shrug. I'm not a historian.

From what I've read, this has a lot to do with a lot of power centralizing into the hands of the Confucian scholar-class and it becoming politicalized. Sure, it worked great when they advocated the construction of canals and ships, but they a generation later could also reverse and advocate their neglect.

I think if you could in today's information age, update and modernize Confucianism you could get a decent technocratic and a "moral"* government.

*I'm being broad here as I couldn't think of a single word or short hand for the following, I mean to say a government that's responsible, open, and ethical. As suggested up earlier, a House of Exempliary Persons schooled in stuff like law, humanities, philosophy and so on.

I've read the book "The Chinese Machiavelli" which briefly went over many of china's philosophical systems including the analects and I don't see how they couldn't be useful for modern governance, after all modern parliamentary representative democracy as we know it wasn't invented out of whole cloth but I think evolved overtime from more oppressive and nowadays, anachronistic systems.

Maybe we could have a Let's Read and check out the Analects as a group and see what's up.

[PainRack]

I think if you could in today's information age, update and modernize Confucianism you could get a decent technocratic and a "moral"* government.

*I'm being broad here as I couldn't think of a single word or short hand for the following, I mean to say a government that's responsible, open, and ethical. As suggested up earlier, a House of Exempliary Persons schooled in stuff like law, humanities, philosophy and so on.

I've read the book "The Chinese Machiavelli" which briefly went over many of china's philosophical systems including the analects and I don't see how they couldn't be useful for modern governance, after all modern parliamentary representative democracy as we know it wasn't invented out of whole cloth but I think evolved overtime from more oppressive and nowadays, anachronistic systems.

Maybe we could have a Let's Read and check out the Analects as a group and see what's up.

Once you strip Confucianism of its cultural/historical baggage, including the mysticism that made it a religion during the Han dynasty, update it a little...... and well, you get humanism. Or rather, another approach using humanism as its base.

Ren(Benevelonce) is described by Confucius as loving people and governs the interaction between people.
Li(Rite), once you strip away the ritual nature, is the "proper" actions in society. Or in other words, social norms. Confucius defines this as the relationships between people(or it may be under Ren).
Yi(Righteousness) is essentialy the virtues one should nurture. If we move away from Confucius dictates on how to correctly display virtues, well, the basic concepts of loyalty, fillial piety, golden rule, theft, charity......... well I think most people like them. People would just disagree with some of Confucius precepts, such as filial piety ranking overall.


The thing is, the commentaries, or other COnfucianist approach may be quite... archaic. For example, the Analects contain a proverb where a man denounced his father for stealing sheep. While he was praised for being righteous, putting the "right" thing to do over personal loyalty, Confucius deemed that the personal relationship between father and son was too important for the son to had denounched him to the law.

We know from other commentaries and actual historical examples of Confucian thoughts how..... weird this approach could be. An Emperor Wen condemning his uncle because of his corruption, IIRC leading to his execution was condemned, because the Emperor should had curbed his powers earlier or in response, then taking actions to elevate the morals of his uncle. This might be...... useful in an older context, but I just don't see how that's could be practised in the modern context.

Sure, we could abandon the context of zero tolerance, but tolerating corruption and merely curbing the potential for abuse would be....... weird.

[Blayne]

I always thought that Confucius was saying that its one thing to be Righteous and call out the old man, but he's still your father/uncle whatever and you should keep that in mind. That there are two rights and two wrongs and one mustn't lose track of both rights and wrongs for the sake of the right and wrong immediately before you.

[Purple]

We know from other commentaries and actual historical examples of Confucian thoughts how..... weird this approach could be. An Emperor Wen condemning his uncle because of his corruption, IIRC leading to his execution was condemned, because the Emperor should had curbed his powers earlier or in response, then taking actions to elevate the morals of his uncle. This might be...... useful in an older context, but I just don't see how that's could be practised in the modern context.

Sure, we could abandon the context of zero tolerance, but tolerating corruption and merely curbing the potential for abuse would be....... weird.

I don't know if this is just your interpretation (since I have not read the original text). But just from reading your post here it sounds like the idea was to say that the corrupt uncle should have been relieved of duty much earlier and sent to rehabilitation/moral reeducation before things went so far that the crime becomes one that warrants execution. As in, nip the problem in the bud and react in appropriate time. And don't let it fester and than react with a heavy hand.

[PainRack]

That wasn't a "text", but rather, historical Confucian criticism of the actions of Emperor Wen.

I always thought that Confucius was saying that its one thing to be Righteous and call out the old man, but he's still your father/uncle whatever and you should keep that in mind. That there are two rights and two wrongs and one mustn't lose track of both rights and wrongs for the sake of the right and wrong immediately before you.

Yeah. But Confucious concepts, to my rather simple minded reading sounds like it puts personal views above abstract concepts such as society.

[Blayne]

I think that's a matter of historical perspective, back then the "personal" view of the King kinda was society as a whole, and King IS the State and his views on moralism is the state's view of moralism. So it is important that for society to keep moral in the hierarchy of filial piety and what is righteous than the King's obligation is even more so.

Again though this strikes me as very contextual and could be updated to be a lesson on the importance of individual morality and ethics, that the many parts contribute to the greater fabric, and the leaders are meant to reflect an ethical society and govern in an ethical fashion.

I think what distinguishes a modernized Confucianism from Humanism I think is the greater emphasis on ethical governance and how to organize society, humanism I think only broadly concerns itself in the sense of "democracy is good and people should be respected" with concerns of a general humanity taking precedence, while Confucianism would be more state specific and practical. That and I think people are trying to shoehorn in democracy and democratic principles in a place where it can stand without it, Confucianism always struck me as emphasising the state selected meritocracy of experts over popular will. Democracy in a very representative sense I think is something even if understanding modern context, Confucius and his contemporaries would be highly suspicious of being inherently, utopian philosophers.

They might accept the need of a People's Congress, but as a rubber stamping organ for policies determined by the Exemplary Persons, people who are innately qualified to govern over the snout counters and the populists.

[Sidewinder]

They might accept the need of a People's Congress, but as a rubber stamping organ for policies determined by the Exemplary Persons, people who are innately qualified to govern over the snout counters and the populists.

If all a government body does is to rubber-stamp another government body's decisions, then it's USELESS, and you might as well dissolve it to save taxpayers money. Besides, dismissing populists the way you describe, risks alienating the general public (those who vote, or at least outnumber the "exemplary persons" many times over)- which may well lead to civil war.

[Purple]

An interesting twist might be to set the as you call it "People's Congress" up similar to how I understand the British House of Lords works. As in make it a body that has the power to block and send back for revision any laws that it feels would be at odds with the will of the people but at the same time have no real power to make or propose laws. A sort of final regulator valve to a meritocratic system.

[Blayne]

An interesting twist might be to set the as you call it "People's Congress" up similar to how I understand the British House of Lords works. As in make it a body that has the power to block and send back for revision any laws that it feels would be at odds with the will of the people but at the same time have no real power to make or propose laws. A sort of final regulator valve to a meritocratic system.

Essentially yes, additionally the point of it is to have a elected representative body that provides legitimacy. Modern citizens expect to have a say and thus expect to vote and be represented, but clearly representation doesn't always work to give the most optimal result. So something that works in reverse to modern parliamentary systems I feel is best, the Exemplary Persons decide policy and the Congress debates and approves it but doesn't suggest it themselves, this is to provide "openness".

[Ralin]

If all a government body does is to rubber-stamp another government body's decisions, then it's USELESS, and you might as well dissolve it to save taxpayers money. Besides, dismissing populists the way you describe, risks alienating the general public (those who vote, or at least outnumber the "exemplary persons" many times over)- which may well lead to civil war.

Neither of those problems have bothered the current government of China all that much.

[PainRack]

Well, that's not strictly true either.Populist outrage against Japan, US and Taiwan has been detrimental to the Chinese government foreign affairs policies

[Ralin]

Well, that's not strictly true either.Populist outrage against Japan, US and Taiwan has sometimes been detrimental to the Chinese government foreign affairs policies

I fixed it for you. Sometimes they suppress populist sentiment, sometimes they ride the wave depending on whether they want to bully Japan or take an anti-American position or whatever at the moment. Either way, I think that they're pretty good at handling and redirecting it as need be.

[Blayne]

It's not quite that simple, part of the problem is that the government can only consistently rely on nationalistic sentiment (tied to the Taiwan issue) to maintain much of their legitimacy. So they are somewhat forced to increasingly ride popular sentiment and take a strong stance on foreign relation issues whenever they don't manage to contain information. We see as a symptom of this (or perhaps the cause?) the double digit military budget increases because the newer generation of leaders lack the same political clout Mao, Deng and the other Long March leaders had, so to mollify the military they increase their budget to keep them happy.

This is from reading Susan Shirk's "China: Fragile superpower".

[Ralin]

I've read Shirk's book too. If I'm remembering right she said that the average Chinese person doesn't really care all that much about Taiwan but the CCP leadership probably feels that they've backed themselves into a corner rhetorically on the subject and that they can't back down without looking weak in the eyes of the public. I think she has a good perspective on China in a lot of areas but I don't agree with her there, because I've yet to meet a mainlander who didn't think that Taiwan was a part of China and that it can't be allowed to leave.

We see as a symptom of this (or perhaps the cause?) the double digit military budget increases because the newer generation of leaders lack the same political clout Mao, Deng and the other Long March leaders had, so to mollify the military they increase their budget to keep them happy.

I don't remember that part (though it has been 5+ years since I read that book, so I'm not doubting you), but I have to question the wisdom of giving the military the funds to buy more weapons and maintain more troops if you're worried about whether you can control them. And there are plenty of other good reasons for them to have increased the military's budget, what with them wanting China to be a/the regional power.