Anarchist ideas cannot be applied while the state system continues in existence. In fact, it may be that the application of anarchist ideas within a statist structure can only lead to worse oppression. FULL ARTICLE by Murray Rubinstein
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12507/traditional-china-and-anarchism/
Traditional China and Anarchism
Previous post: The Bubble in For-Profit Schooling
Next post: Mises Does Phoenix
{ 9 comments }
It would be much appreciated if KY Leong could comment a bit on this article, since he has written several articles on Chinese history for Mises.org in the past.
As a Chinese though, this article feels as if it was penned with a superficial understanding of the subject itself.
I always thought that Confucianism and Taoism were somewhat at odds with each other, and basically avoided antagonism by operating in different fields of human endeavor. I don’t see how anarchistic views were truly adopted by the Chinese state–rather, it seems that they tried a more stringent process of making sure that “good people” were in charge of government. The paternalistic magistrate hardly seems like an example of taoist anarchism.
One of the main lessons from Chinese history, as taught to the Chinese, seems to be that periods of relative anarchy are horrible times of war and banditry and are to be avoided at all costs in favor of a strong, centralized government ruling all Chinese (and all minorities within their grasp). This is undoubtedly a con job however as I don’t think that any period of banditry could match the body count piled up by the “greatest” central rulers of whom Mao Zedong is only the most recent example. And when there have been massacres and famines during times of disunity, in nearly every case I think you will find that these have been caused by leaders and factions who were strenuously trying to become the centralized rulers. For example during the Taiping Rebellion of the 19th century and the civil war of the 1930s and 40s.
It could not be more clear right now that the breakaway, relatively independent and relatively minarchist pieces of the Chinese world (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore) are far more free and wealthy than the centralized Chinese state. On the basis of the logic of libertarianism, the lessons of history and the evidence of the current situation, the peaceful breakup of the PRC should be the goal of all right-thinking people.
“I always thought that Confucianism and Taoism were somewhat at odds with each other, and basically avoided antagonism by operating in different fields of human endeavor. I don’t see how anarchistic views were truly adopted by the Chinese state–rather, it seems that they tried a more stringent process of making sure that “good people” were in charge of government. The paternalistic magistrate hardly seems like an example of taoist anarchism.”
The way it was explained to me by a mainland Chinese is that scholars study and emulate Confucianism while they are employed as government bureaucrats. When they become disaffected they retire to the country to fish and study Taoism.
Sure. The taoists were the true anarchists, because they stayed away from government. The Confucianists, on the other hand, still wanted to control things, just in a different way.
Anarchist ideas? No thank you.
Free market ideas, yes please, these ideas are built off “thou shall not steal”.
The freedom to have and use private property is good and a God given right.
But I am afraid that people confuse our God given freedoms of private property and then apply it to everything.
“do not steal” doesn’t come with any qualifier or exemption for government.
I disagree on the final lesson drawn in this article. China, ancient or present, rarely has the idea of freedom widely accepted. There has to be a higher authority making decisions for an individual, be it the husband, the father, the local official, and ultimately the king or emperor. And the idea of taking the property from the evil rich and distribute it to the poor has always been popular among the people. Also ever since the first unified dynasty, only the government could legally own weapons, lest the people would overthrow its rule. It is true that Taoism advocates anarchism and some emperors as believers had the mentality of constantly reducing the government power, such as 漢文帝 (Emperor Wen of Han). But such cases are too rare.
Sorry guys, been busy watching the Goldman Sachs saga last night, only read this piece this morning. Here’s a short comment – only MHO.
The article seems to suggest that both Confucianism and Daoism/Taoism were anarchist political philosophies in essence, but somehow their ideals, through some three thousands years of Chinese feudal rule, were unfortunately corrupted in practice by the parasitic state and its self-interested minions. I beg to differ somewhat with this assessment.
Firstly, I view Confucianism as a totally statist political philosophy. The core teachings of Confucius is based on a four-step progression (in personal conduct) that is deemed necessary to bring about a peaceful social order: 1) xiu shen, 2) qi jia, 3) zhi guo, and 4) ping tian xia, or, respectively, self-cultivation, order one’s household, strengthen the kingdom, and rule the world. This is as statist and imperialist as it gets. At the heart of this system is a political ethics that puts society above self, and that which decrees a social hierarchy where the King (declared Son of Heaven) is at the apex of the pyramid of a secular exploitative scheme. Next to him are his immediate family members, Dukes and Marquis and other relatives of the extended royal family. At the bottom of the pile are the hapless peasants and slaves.
In between the rulers and the distinctly ruled/exploited are the intellectuals (shi) of the lowest nobility class, whose services were patronized by the state. The shi’s, as Confucius was one, were basically paid professionals i.e. accountants, property managers (for the feudal lords), physicians, artists, war strategists/schemers/conspirators and, as teachers of the royal youngsters, guardians of rituals and (statist) morals. Thus, under such as employment arrangement, whose interests do you think they served? Certainly not the lot of the common folks.
Secondly, Lao zi (LaoTzu), the alleged author of Dao dejing (Tao Te Jing), also a shi (court librarian), was no anarchist. His famous dictum – “wu wei er zhi” – meaning literally “to rule by not interfering”, does not imply “no state” or “no emperor”. It proposes, at best, minimal government, but never the elimination of the King or the abolistion of his state apparatus. Daoism, as far as I can see, preaches reclusivity/escapism/abstentionism i.e. the detachment of oneself from the chaotic society (that was the result of some 500 years of continuous warfare during the Spring Autumn/Warring States period) in which both Confucius and Lao zi lived.
There is nothing in the Dao dejing that calls for tearing down government or throwing out the ruler. There are no arguments in support of the private property ethics, no explication on the merits of the division of labor, voluntary cooperation or freedom in contracts. In fact, in chapter 80 Lao zi praises the happy ways of a stoic, stone-age type of existence – away from civilization – a return to the lot of the primitives/tribal people (have a read of the translation at http://www.daily-tao.com).
Thus Daoism, originally conceived as a plea for the non-meddling state, may be stretched the most to that somewhat akin to European classical liberalism; it is certainly no American libertarianism of the sort that is Spencer and Tucker, or the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard or Hoppe.
So, as a collorary here, next time you find an Asian leader, or some Western statist academic, justifying/attributing the “miraculous” achievements of some Asian Tiger economy to its adherence to Confucian ethics or Daoist pietism – ask that Hoppe question – Is it because of government, or is it, rather inspite of government?
Comments on this entry are closed.