The Core Social Principles of Ideologies

The treatment of women in Confucian societies is a feature, not a bug. Women, children, and foreigners are subjects — not citizens. Full stop.

It is important to remember that, in modern Confucian political theory, the masses are seen as children and are therefore merely subjects. The only true citizens are members of the CCP and/or Politiburo. Because of the constitutional changes imposed in the late 1970s, the government’s legitimacy stems from its “paternal” ability to increase economic opportunities for its “children” via its control of state-owned companies.

Incidentally, there seems to be a huge push to make American democracy Confucian. I don’t think anyone’s buying it, but I’d be curious to find out where the money’s coming from. In particular, I’d be curious to see if it’s the same people funding “Me Too” and BLM campaigns and if they’re funneling it through the same think tanks/law firms/etc. (If you have any experience in Asian or Eastern European studies, those movements’ tactics are straight from Mao’s Cultural Revolution playbook, which itself was based on Stalin’s Great Terror.)

See, e.g., Tondong Bai, Against Political Equality: The Confucian Case
Jian Qing, A Confucian constitutional order: how China’s ancient past can shape its political future

Mine is Benthamite Utilitarianism – greatest good for greatest number. Not sure what it translates to practically, since good and for who are so fluid. Mostly, I’ve settles into a Buddhist acceptance that sentient life is suffering and there’s no way to escape it except through nirvana. Yet I live (and eat meat, and enjoy international vacations, and probably have a slightly above average energy footprint) because I’m here and might as well enjoy it as long as I’m not causing too much harm, and because my extinguishing would cause some people pain. I try to be kind in my interactions with people, but I’m not sure how successful I’m at it.

Note on Confucianism – Confucianism isn’t specifically exclusive of women, children, foreigners. It’s strictly hierarchical from top to bottom. It’s just a variant of Feudalism with more organizing principles and a more pacifist bent (really, everything except for Anarchism is Feudalism with more organizational principles). The Zhou Emperor is at the top, followed by kings, followed by their ministers, followed by gentlemen, followed by their retainers, followed by children and women, and foreigners (and religious figures and oddballs) are outside of this hierarchy because they don’t belong. The positions do change over time, but the idea is that there’s structure and roles and everyone must play their role properly for the system to work.

Individualism is acceptable in harmless ways such as Taoist who take themselves completely out of society. It made an accommodation with Buddhism after a shaky start in the Sui and Tang dynasty, but is very clear that Buddhism too is outside of the Confucian hierarchy and does not question it. Mass religious movements are extremely dangerous and the basis for numerous highly destructive civil wars – that’s why the CCP regime absolutely freaked about Falunggong when it started to look like a mass religious movement.

I’m not sure it’s a bad strategy. It’s ideal for a stable society. Even when it’s stressed by outside invaders or civil war, the new ruler (as often as not are not ethnically Han Chinese) always picks up Confucianism and are assimilated into the Chinese culture. Mao is certainly in that tradition and he clearly saw himself as the founding emperor of a new regime and his actions mirror ruthless behaviors you see at the start of the Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and Qing Dynasties (just the biggies, I’ve not bothered with the intricacies of the various minor regimes at times when the country is splintered). He’s happy to take any strategy that gets him what he wants and everyone else is just instrumentalities to him. There were innovations and additional thoughts built on Confucianism by later adepts, but overall it’s very much focused on stable society at the cost of innovation, presumably due to the early trauma of the Warring States period.

I don’t think what the US and the West are moving towards is Confucianism, because there is a seriously toxic streak of individualism and capitalism that would not be acceptable to Confucians (who always thought very poorly of merchants and soldiers). I’d say it’s just straight out Feudalism – billionaires at the top, their multi-millionaire enablers in MSM/politics/corporate management undeath, the PMC servants beneath, and the great unwashed underneath. Race and gender and national origins doesn’t matter.

Just had a long conversation with a friend that convinced me I had misunderstood some important things about the modern left

I’d be really interested in hearing about what you feel you were wrong about, and what you are correcting your perspectives to.

Also, I’m sure you weren’t intending to aim for perfection here, but I think that there is something about capitalism I’d like to offer a different perspective on:

The fundamental proposition of capitalism is that money is earned by providing “utility” and that those who have money have it because they have done the most good

I think the fundamental proposition of capitalism is actually that (in principle) ethical “worth” and (in practice) control of labor behavior and allocation of profits should be held by those who own the capital. I read what you are saying its fundamental proposition is as a post-hoc rationalization. The proposition I’m proposing is followed in capitalistic societies even when enterprises fail, produce less profit, or damage their workers/customers/the environment. It also helps to delineate capitalism from ideological frameworks which deliberately tried to distinguish themselves from capitalism, such as market socialism, which would propose that control of labor behavior and allocation of profits should be held collectively by the group of workers in the enterprise. That doesn’t necessarily challenge the idea that money is earned by providing “utility” or the ethical rationalization. Just a thought.

Interesting Post Ian. Events of the last thirty years bring me to ask.

Assuming and this is quite an assumption, that most humans have a true guiding philosophy, a philosophy that is more than just a mask to hide primordial desire; at what point are these adherents morally allowed to drop their philosophy because of …well…[insert world, country, family, friends, personal here] existential demise? I may be wrong but, my observation indicates almost no human believes any philosophy is so germane to an adherents being that it becomes, essentially, a suicide pact.

Of there are EXTREME exceptions celebrated in lore, but those are outliers, well outside the overwhelming number of people’s experience.

I ask this question because it’s germane; in the past three presidencies, the president and most assuredly his followers claimed existential exemptions to all philosophies:

Clinton claimed Slobodan Milosevic was Hitler, thusly a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of preemptive war. A war that would end up killing far more that that particular “Hitler”ever did.

Bush II claimed Saddam Hussein was Hitler, thusly a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of preemptive war. A war that would end up killing far more that that particular “Hitler”ever did.

Obama claimed Gaddafi was Hitler, thusly a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of preemptive war. A war that would end up killing far more that that particular “Hitler”ever did.

Obama claimed Assad was Hitler, thusly a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of preemptive war. A war that would end up killing far more that that particular “Hitler”ever did.

Hillary/her followers claimed Trump was Hitler..no, Mussolini..no, Putin’s puppet..whatever, a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of civil war. Now that he’s gone, just as the US Constitution provided for, the bullshit conjectures have been shown to be wild rhetoric that

In the upcoming days a pretext will is planned to provide Biden with a “Hitler” a threat to the entire world, an existential threat and worthy of preemptive war. A war that will end up killing far more that that particular “Hitler”ever could.

In short, when you have a “philosophy” that has an escape clause that can be used whenever one becomes tired of the pretense, is that not what I inferred above, just a mask to hide reptilian desire?

Just this past weekend I saw the documentary, “In Defense of Food.” I’m now questioning the foundations of my vegetarian-sometimes-vegan diet for the past 20+ years, and I wonder.

Learning about the Great Chain of Being at almost the same time was a big surprise, as that seems to be a dietary justification for many vegetarians and vegans. The fact that it enforces a hierarchy – a fully-fleshed-out one thanks to medieval Christians – throws a lot of cognitive dissonance my way, in terms of coming up with justifications for adhering to a completely plant-based diet.

For the time being I assume I adhere (?) to a Buddhist mindset in regards to reducing the amount of suffering I inflict upon others – though I’m no student of Buddhism. I also have personally ascribed to “philosophical Taoism” (as opposed to a spiritual or religious type of Taoism) for many, many years.

Politically, I know I am anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal, and I think I am pro-socialist and pro-worker.

Willy, Hannah Arendt called the hijacking of science “scientificality.”

BC Nurse Prof,

I would argue that utilitarianism gets you to voluntary human extinction, once you derive that human existence is a net negative on happiness and “good”. But this is a philosophy of a movie supervillain, so I keep it to myself and I do not act on it, being volunteering to take myself out of the gene pool after this round.

I don’t think humans are inherently evil. More that they are prone to select for destructiveness and psychopathy when given the chance. The peaceful and sustainable loses out to the violent and unsustainable. But same difference. We can’t help ourselves and there lies the seeds of our destruction.

I’m not sure Buddhism provides an adequate framework for government/rule beyond the sangha, and I’m not sure even then that Buddhism or Buddhist thought is the underlying ideology, as the harshness of some of that rule is quite in contrast to the idea of limiting/alleviating suffering.

Prior to the Chinese takeover, Tibet (ostensibly under the rule of kindly Buddhist lamas — but in fact ruled by a cruel and often very brutal feudal aristocracy) was no Shangri-la. Far from it.

The perpetual problem in much of the West — and too often in its colonial extensions — is capitalist-“democracy” which has amalgamated with a furious form of Christianist extremism and dominionism. It’s a con-game to exploit the rubes, and sadly, it continues to work. An example of Power corrupted absolutely. Of course, as we are often reminded, it could and likely will be worse.

Yet “exploitation” — particularly of one another and the increasingly fragile earth — in all imaginable forms is the polestar and guiding ideology of a vast and powerful swath of humanity. Even the worst exploited follow along. It leads to very warped governance. I’ve said for decades it can’t be sustained, and yet still it abides, seemingly immune to improvement or replacement.

We need something else again.

Thanks for this thread. I have no idea.

Ideologies, like religions purport to use a system or structure to explain life, and, with some, an afterlife. If one belongs or subscribes to that ideology or religion, it implies an identity. As an “identified” individual, one sees those not adhering to a given ideology as “the other”. The result can be conflict, war, in short, evil. Why? Because even if one subscribes to the golden rule–which in itself is an excellent idea–those not of one’s identity are seen in some way less aware of “the truth” that members of the ideology implicitly “know”.

My personal solution is to divest myself, to the degree possible, of any identity other than those rooted in physicality. For example: sexual being and the locality where one lives.

So, how to cope with life and the world? Question everything. Use PROCESS instead of ideology/religion. For the practical purpose of everyday living, try out various social, economic, and political structures, but always with the idea that they are temporary experiments, always subject to questioning and change in view to making life more humane. Ah, and that is the core: what is a good, human life. For each of us to decide.

“My personal solution is to divest myself, to the degree possible, of any identity other than those rooted in physicality. For example: sexual being and the locality where one lives.”

do you mean gendered being? (at the risk of controversy). Some may much more identify as assexual beings, but that’s an identity right?

Personally, I just try to live by the “Doctor Who” principle: the fairest negotiation (or best action) is one where you don’t know what position you’ll have afterward. It’s not an ideology in the Arendtian sense of the term, but it’s the closest thing to a pole star I’ve been able to come up with.

I also want to second what anon said. The euphemism I heard again and again was “the air is better” in the West. They were *not* just talking about smog. And the “better air” is the reason why brain drain in China, Ukraine, and Russia was nowhere near where the models said they should be, which predicted a leveling off as they stabilized and became “middle-income countries.”

It’s also why I’m curious to see where the funding for Me Too and BLM really came from, as well as how the PR firms who put it together put it together. Those two movements, more than anything else, have given my former coworkers pause about working here. Not the insane American healthcare system, not the education system, not even Trump — they’ve turned down the partnership track because their parents raised them with horror stories about the Cultural Revolution and they don’t want to see it for themselves.

Astrid and Chris,

I skipped over Taoism because in the three years I lived and worked in China, no one mentioned it to me. Oddly, it also never came up in any of my Chinese classes. It seems to be something religious/spiritual Westerners study, not something those of us in China for business reasons learn about.

I’m also not sure where I used the word “exclusive.” I completely agree that Confucianism is a strict hierarchy. I’m just saying that, as that hierarchy is applied in its modern Chinese form, that means pretty much everyone in China is a subject — not a citizen. Subjects still have to follow laws, pay taxes, etc. In most societies, they have rights, although not as many as citizens. The big differences is the ways in which citizens are obligated to assist their community, the ways the community is obligated to help them, and the ways/degree they’re able to influence their community.

I also don’t think I said that “Democratic Confucianism” is gaining ground in democratic societies, and I apologize if it sounded that way. I’m just pointing out that there is a concerted effort to try to *create* one. It feels very artificial to me, largely because the books I’ve seen operate completely ignore Western social and political history (i.e., Jim Crow, Victorian work houses, etc.). It feels a bit like the University of Chicago and George Mason University’s Economics Departments’ attempts to develop pro-monopolist/libertarian ideologies and rhetoric in the 1960s and 1970s. I hope some journalist somewhere looks into where the funding is coming from because I don’t think the Chinese government is completely behind this one — I have a feeling you’ll find a couple of Chinese billionaires who want to be the next Koch brothers.

It makes me wonder a few things. First, in what ways and to what extent do you need legitimacy from your subjects to function as a global empire state? How does it differ from the legitimacy you need from your citizens? How does citizenship/subjecthood relate to the society’s economic structure? Those things seem to change together, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Second, did the USA make a similar constitutional change between either the Patriot Act and/or Citizens United? Are we now a state where the true citizens are transnational corporate persons while the rest of us are merely subjects? Is the role of the state now solely to create/distribute market opportunities to its “citizens” (i.e., corporations), with the lions share of opportunities going to those who donated to the winning campaign? It would explain a lot about the choices Democrats made with Obamacare, the 2008 bailout, etc.

More importantly, are the UK and the rest of the ex-Commonwealth states just beginning the same process?

But that’s a bit off-topic. My point is that China is adhering to its stated ideology of “Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics.” Sadly, America may be too. It all depends on who a “citizen” really is and what states should do for them.

Just say NO to Confucianism. Even Confucius called Lao-Tzu a “dragon”, the highest compliment you can pay. Confucianism considers everyone to be a child who needs to be told what to do, and does so by utilizing a hierarchy at every level, from the family hierarchy (guess who is in charge?) on up. I cannot stress enough that hierarchies are unnatural (against nature). Nature survives, hierarchies do not last very long, relatively speaking. We are about to see that in living Technicolor. It’s a model that needs to be banned. These systems require “endless growth in a finite system”, which has been pointed out as also a major bug in these systems. Nature seeks to maintain balance, and Taoism also stresses balance.

Taoism also stresses (assumes) that people who have enough to meet their needs will do the right thing without being told or forced. Leadership under Taoism is suggested as being a follower of the people. The best leaders aren’t even visible because they are doing such a good job, no one notices them. Leaders work to make sure the people have enough, and the rest follows. Pretty simple.

Taoism (Daoism) is much more in agreement with the highly successful Native American tribes (the non-hierarchical versions) who controlled their population levels AND made sure resources were used/shared appropriately by also considering the needs of future generations (imagine that). And these tribes existed in roughly the same form for many thousands of years. They did unimaginable (to us) things, such as learning what works and what doesn’t over the long term.

Their cultures were (are, in the case of the Hopi) rich in providing meaning to their lives, unless you prefer being mesmerized and tracked by expensive, resource wasting “technology” with designed obsolescence to keep you obedient and impoverished and afraid to express yourself fully. In their cultures, everyone is encouraged/assisted in finding their place in it, finding a way to contribute that suited them, their interests, and their abilities, and with the social support system to do so built in. How now, brown cow?

Argue all you want about which dead white man was smarter, or “correct”, or had “better ideas”. I’ve got news for you: every single one of them was wrong, one way or another. The evidence is right in front of us. It’s time we listened to other voices, other types of wisdom, ones with a better track record.

I apologize for the grammatical errors.

As to the space aficionados, consider that we have to travel with a containerized version of the earth environment in order to go anywhere, else we die. We are meant to be here.

C.I.

Thanks for your discussion, very interesting and certainly explored some perspectives that I had not previously considered. Yes, I agree that the shift to the oligarchy of the transnational corporations has occurred in the US, is occurring in the Anglophone world, and certainly attempted elsewhere with varying levels of success. I am beginning to think oligarchy is pretty much inevitable in any large society, though the current iteration seems particularly predatory, shortsighted, and unwilling to course correct. I am constantly reminded of similarity to the reign of Czar Nicholas II. For now, the citizens are in symbiosis with the reactionaries as well as the conservatives, but I suspect that partnership will break down soon and the corporate Republicans will join the corporate Democrats, with everyone else marginalized for a while. It’s the iron fist of the deep state and neofeudalism wrapped up in woke/antiwoke/patriotism/racism/antiracism PR.

For your Chinese former coworkers, I think it goes to people always fighting the last war. For them that’s the Cultural Revolution. This is doubly so since your former coworkers would likely come from the Intelligensia and professional classes, so their family may have had a harder time than most through the Cultural Revolution. The horror of disorder isn’t coming from Confucian doctrine (PRC isn’t really a Confucian society, the population dynamics caused by the one-child policy pretty much assures that) but from lived experience. I would say South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are all much more Confucian than Mainland China.

I am not surprised that your former coworkers are indifferent to US’s terrible education and healthcare systems. They’re used to it as Mainland China has a pretty terrible medical system, so they would not mind that especially since your coworkers are likely young, healthy, and well insured by their foreign employer. Mainland China’s education system is similarly appalling and absolute misery for the children who have to go through it, so the US’s comparatively relaxed system would be an upgrade, especially for people who are able to get their kids into good school districts or magnet schools. If they’re in China, they can probably afford international schools and foreign universities for their children.

Daoism isn’t a religion or even a well practiced philosophy in China. How many Stoics do you meet in the West? There’s a lot of folk religion and magical practices attached to Daoism and people do vaguely believe that when they visit temples. But religious Daoism doesn’t have much to do with philosophical Daoism, and it’s not a lived in religion the way that Buddhism, Hinduism, or the monotheistic religions are. Vast majority of people in China seem to get by with a mishmash of ideas that help them get on with life, without much reflection on higher principles. For the Chinese, they further have to deal with the vagaries of translation and access. Classical Chinese is readable by the well educated but it’s not easy or fun. I always suspect that contemporary Mainlanders pick up far more about Daoism and Buddhism from wuxia TV series than they ever do from the actual texts. If any religious or spiritual movement has any real power over the masses, it would be ruthlessly suppressed just like falunggong.

trinity: “Argue all you want about which dead white man was smarter…” Uh, Confucius, the Buddha, Jesus et al. weren’t white. And it’s always funny to see usually white Westerners confecting their own westernized versions of non-Western religions. Pure cultural appropriation, and bogus at that.

Ian’s take is just as ignorant and reductive, but you’re no improvement.