Permit me to thank Michael Springate for his recent post on the issue of
Confucius, wealth, and class conflict.

Michael Springate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Subject: Re: "deprived"?/and a quote from Tamas on Post-Fascism
>
>  In a response to a comment from Wei, Charles Moyer wrote
>
>"But I do believe Confucius hit upon something when he said that it was
>comparatively easier for one to be rich and not be puffed up than it was
>for one to be poor and not feel resentment."
>
>
>Charles
>
>I'd be interested in knowing why you surmise Confucious may have said that
>(if
>indeed, that is how he put it)?
>

This is an excellent question, worthy of investigation.  If Confucius did
make such a statement (and I do not doubt that he said something very
similar to this) it would probably be found in the Analects.

Confucius was very quick to blame the poor, or the "lower orders" for their
problems, and EXTREMELY RELUCTANT to criticize the rich, or to advocate
policies of redistribution.

>Could it be that the poor person sees the effect of waste and lost
>opportunity
>very keenly?
>

Poor people, who were in Confucian times (and continue today) to be in the
majority, do often keenly feel the sentiment you describe.  Of course, in
China, throughout most of its history, it has been illegal to criticize
"Superior Man," (or "Man of breeding" as Pound "translates the term).  And I
don't mean illegal in the sense of there existing a written law, which
forbids such criticism.  I mean something else.  Illegal or forbidden, in
the sense that complaining, asking for redress of grievances, or petitioning
was (and still is, largely) socially taboo.  This is an extremely important
aspect of Chinese culture, and a part of the Confucian tradition.  I don't
know if Charles Moyer is aware of this, or to what degree others on this
list are aware of this fact.  But, during Confucian times, Confucius himself
was involved in a battle with the Legalists (followers of the Fa Xue
school).  The legalists argued that the Law (Fa) should be published, and
put in public view, where the people could consult it, and know exactly what
was allowed and what was forbidden.  Confucius opposed this view, on the
grounds that the teaching of the rules of virtue to the leader should be
sufficient.  No ruler, he argued, should be bound by a written law,
especially one publicly published.  The Ruler's  "Li" (or willingness to
follow the rules of propriety) should be enough.

Legalists argued, on the other hand, that if laws were published, the people
would have a very clear idea of what was required of them, and not be
subject to the whims of a leader.  They were trying to do something similar
to what Hammarabi, Moses, and Roman Republicans did, by standardizing law,
and making the people AND the ruler subject to the law (rather than having
no law, other than what the leader in any given period thought to be in his
interest).

The Legalists also argued that all knowledge of social practices should
based on developing norms suited to the specific needs of a society.  They
disagreed with Confucius, who believed that we should look to the past, and
only to the past to discover what is and always has been right (hence
Confucius' admonition, often quoted by Pound, to go back to the social
morality of the Zhou --or Chou-- dynasty.  The Zhou dynasty was based on
slavery, which ended with the Han dynasty.  Confucius deeply regretted the
collapse of the older morality, which he saw as the only salvation for the
future.  He could not envision a new order of society, the feudal, which
would be superior, in most respects to the society of Zhou).

The Confucians won this battle definitively, and although they were not able
to go back to the Zhou dynasty, they were able to forestall the main object
of the Legalist theoreticians, namely, accountability before a written law.
They also forestalled the progressive study and development of law as a
science based on the observation and description of society and its needs,
irrespective of rituals and tradtional practices.  Confucianists believed in
the prescriptive study of social ethics, not in descriptive study of actual
differing and competing norms.

>Could it be that the wealthy believe "all is right" more easily than the
>poor?
>
>Or, is the interpretation you prefer that the poor are not only poorer in
>wealth, but poorer in emotional self-discipline? or poorer in social
>objectivity?
>

Confucius always supported the notion that the ruling class morality was
unquestionably superior to that of the commoner.  He always argued that
women were inferior and incapable of intelligent thought of any kind (There
is the story of ancient Chinese ruler who had ten advisors, one of whom was
a woman.  Confucius is quoted in the Analects as saying, "That ruler only
had nine advisors, because a woman does not count"). Confucius also said,
the common people can know nothing of politics, therefore they should never
be permitted even to discuss the subject.  (Also in the Analects--I can give
you the references if you want).

>
>In terms of the nature of fascism today, and its relations to democracy, I
>strongly suggest an article entitled On Post Fascism, by G. M. Tamás,
>printed
>by the Boston Review and available on their websight at:
>
>http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR25.3/tamas.html
>
>I'd like to  quote part of it, though. And yes, I do think it opens a new
>thought on how to approach Pound's relation to fascism.
>

Sounds interesting.  I will try to look at the entire article.


>"For the liberal, social-democratic, and other assorted progressive heirs
>of
>the Enlightenment, then, progress meant universal citizenship--that is, a
>virtual equality of political condition, a virtually equal say for all in
>the
>common affairs of any given community

As you can see, Confucius and Pound had no such conception, especially as
regards "a virtually equal say for all in the common affairs of the
community", and they resisted such notions when they confronted them.  I
always find it fascinating that Pound felt the need to go back to Confucius
to find a political philosophy which was reactionary enough to suit him.  In
Guide to Kulchur, he outlines the reasons why no Western philosopher suits
him as Confucius does.  Even Aristotle is too "subversive" for him (he
actually uses that word).


>--together with a social condition and a
>model of rationality that could make it possible. For some, socialism
>seemed to
>be the straightforward continuation and enlargement of the Enlightenment
>project; for some, like Karl Marx, the completion of the project required a
>revolution (doing away with the appropriation of surplus value and an end
>to
>the social division of labor). But for all of them it appeared fairly
>obvious
>that the merger of the human and the political condition was, simply, moral
>necessity.2
>

Pound was influenced by these modes of thought, which is why he said in
1924, that both the Fascist Revolution of 1922, and Bolshevik Revolution
were "interesting phenomena".

(continued in next post)

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com