Martin Deporres <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:

>Confucius observed that the bulk of crime is associated with the condition
>of poverty. An absolute truth.
>
This is far from being an "absolute truth".  In fact, I think we should be
wary of any claims about an "absolute truth".  The evidence seems to
indicate that a large amount of crime (probably the bulk, measured in
monetary terms) is white collar crime, not blue collar crime.  Corporate
crimes, and white collar crimes amount to a sum, I am told, greater than
five times the amount of street crime.

Also the crimes committed by the US war machine are prompted by the
covetessness of the rulers, far more so than they are prompted by poverty.
If you have any proof that the bulk of crime is associated with poverty, you
should perhaps present it, rather than asserting that your claim is
"absolute truth".

>
>The laws had been published--the laws were in fact so arcane and so complex
>that society was completely immobilised by them--which was the core of the
>argument by Master Kung. Thus the ascendancy--as in almost all cases where
>rule of law has been completely buraucratised--of lawyers, bureaucrats and
>the rich.
>
>

Where is the evidence to sustain this interpretation of the history of law
during the period of Confucius?

I refer you to the very excellent historical study:

  Wu Tien-wei.  Lin Biao and the Gang of Four:  Contra-Confucianism in
 Historical and Intellectual Perspective.  Carbondale: Southern
 Illinois University Press, 1983.

This book outlines in detail how the critique of Confucius and of
Confucianism has developed over the centuries.  If you can suggest a work
(or produce any evidence) which could be used to sustain the view you
propose, I would be interested to see it.

>And for gods sake Wei stop romanticising the Roman Republicans--they were
>no better than the American
>>Republicans.The people as a whole fared much better under the Emperors.
>

Is this last statement an "absolute truth" or a statement which can be
subjected to inquiry?  I would like to see some evidence for this statement
as well, if you have any.  I suspect that such a view is a
mythico-ideological construction, designed by the Emperors themselves to
justify their rule.

[Can you honestly say you have read Plutarch, Livy, and Suetonius, or other
ancient classical sources, and come that conclusion, that Imperial
government was better than Republican goverment?]

Are you not "romanticizing" the Emperors?


>
> > slavery, which ended with the Han dynasty.
>
>Ha!! First came Chin who used the Legalists to justify the murder and
>enslavement of millions and the building of the great wall.

I do not deny that Qin Shihuangdi (Chin)  was a murderous tyrant, perhaps
the worst in Chinese history (Interestingly enough, he is one of the few
non-Confucians in Chinese history who is praised by Pound--- Would you agree
with me that Pound was wrong to give such misplaced adulation to the founder
of Qin).

Let us look carefully at your words: "Chin who used the Legalists to justify
the murder and enslavement of millions" . . .    Yes, Qin Shihuangdi USED
the Legalists.  The Legalist philosophy itself had been around since the
time of Confucius, over four hundred years.  That progressive philosophy was
first formulated around the time  by Han Feizi.  He cannot be held, nor can
all his successors be held, responsible for Qin's MISUSE of his Legalist
ideas, any more than Christ can be held responsible for the Crusades.  Do
you also blame Voltaire and Rousseau for "le Terreur"?


>>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).
>
>Especially when it almost immediately broke into multiple kingdoms--Han was
>a culture. And a land-hungry one at that. And it still is, matey.
>

I have no essential disageement with that whatsover.  But how is this point
relevant to the issue of reactionary Confucianism?  My point was simply that
Confucius as a philosopher sought out the OLDER forms of social
organization, which were far more hierarchical.  Do you disagree with the
notion that, in Chinese society at least, feudal forms were more beneficial
on the whole (and more progressive) than the older slave-holding forms?


>
> > >Could it be that the wealthy believe "all is right" more easily than
>the
> > >poor?
>
>Particularly when using "democracy" to their own ends.
>
True enough.  I believe we agree here.  Perhaps we have a few common
assumptions or beliefs.  But where would you take us with this insight?

> > Confucius is quoted in the Analects as saying, "That ruler only
> > had nine advisors, because a woman does not count").
>
>We don't know what Confucius, said Wei, anymore than we know what Christ,
>Buddha, Mohammed Socrates or Pythagoras said since none of them ever wrote
>anything down--or anything that survived. We have only the word of their
>sycophants.
>
It is true, I think, that we do not know precisely what these figures said,
nor can we be very sure about any of the particulars.  For the sake of a
thought experiment I would be willing to go as far as you, and say that all
the records were written by sycophants, and that we should adopt a skeptical
view of all the records which attribute certain views to certain historical
figures.  But, if we take your view, I cannot see how you can assert that
life under the Roman Emperors was better than it was under the Republic.
Were not the records of the Emperor's words, deeds, and policies ALSO
written by sycophants?  You need to reconcile this potential contradiction
for me.

My overall attitudes and belief system are not predicated on an absolute
belief that such and such a statement must have been made by Christ or
Buddha or Socrates or Pythagoras at a specific time, or that any of their
words were perfectly recorded.  But even so, I would take the words
attributed to these figures to be extremely valuable in the forms that we
have (perhaps more valuable than the words of all the Roman Emperors).


>The point is this Wei. Democracies, like authoritarian systems, don't work.

Could we amend this to say "don't work" perfectly?  And could we not say
that Democracies appear, in most cases, to work better than authoritarian
systems?  I do not understand your objection to this.  If you are against
BOTH authoritarian systems and democracies, what do you prefer?

>Democracy, much like the canal system of irrigation, works well in a
>sparsely populated city-state environment.

So it does work.  Then perhaps we need decentralization, loose
confederation, and more local production for democracy to work better than
it does now.  Would that suggestion be in harmony with your hypothesis?


>
>From the point the population density increases, or the city states
>interconnect, freedom becomes subordinate to commerce and the exchange of
>goods and services and the accumulation of material wealth.
>Laws and their enforcement are bent to the advantage of the rich, and like
>canals, silt up and become useless. Entropy overtakes everything and in
>social systems it moves more rapidly.
>

That is true enough, and I agree that these trends and factors ---which work
against the realization of universal democracy--- are widely present at this
stage in history, and that they constitute serious difficulties.  But do you
sincerely believe that the barriers are insurmountable?

>
>All societies that have used irrigation have failed. All civilisations that
>have tried democracy have also either collapsed, been absorbed or moved on
>to something that kept them going for a bit longer.
>
Does this necessarily mean that all attempts at democracy are always doomed
to fail?

One could quote Gandhi in this context, who said something to this effect:
"Whenever I despair, I recall that all tyrannies that have ever been have
fallen.  It has always been this way, and it always will be so".

Democracies have collapsed, and tyrannies have have collapsed.  I take more
heartening encouragement from the defeat of fascism, the fall of the USSR,
the end of Apartheid, and the collapse of all military dictatorships in
Latin America than perhaps you do.  There are still capitalist tyrannies,
plutocracies, and oligarchies, with all their attendant problems, but it
will take an extremely long time to acheive nearness to perfection in human
social and political relations.

>
>The average lifespan of a Republic or an empire is about 200-300 years.
>That of a civilisation--let's give this the classic date of 1648--the
>Treaty of Westphalia--is about 400 years.
>

What is the average lifespan of a dictatorship these days?  It seems to be
growing less and less.  I continue to hope, work, teach and learn with these
goals in view:  more justice, more democracy, more equity, and a greater
sense of fraternity.

I request that you not give up.

Sincere regards,

Wei

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