Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What if a socialist wants to read a Chinese classic, and wants to understand context etc?
Or are we only to bother with European history, and specifically Britain, industrialism, colonialism, etc?
Are our libraries to only contain the works of Marx and Engels?
Non-Europeans are then to be confirmed in their belief that we’re only interested in the West as the “centre of history” and its history as all that’s important. So you can agree with Marx’s dismissive phrase regarding centuries of Chinese stupidity, from which we saved them!
So entire civilisations are of no importance except to an academic, and have nothing worth our study and reading; nothing to teach us; and we can remain in a reductionist, mechanist materialism, alienating others with our insularism.
And the socialist can agree with Henry Ford that history is bunk.
Alan asked me to summarise the system of Imperial China following the criticism of the Leninist fallacy that the synopsis feudalism begets capitalism is true worldwide, which we know to be false. I have answered his request. If you’re not interested, then don’t read it. Go and read something else.
I shan’t apologise for being a socialist who also has other interests, and whose library is not restricted to Marxism.I always thought what distinguished us from the Leftists, as well as our political differences, was our embracing of humanity and of life as a whole. In other words, we are not politicos, sloganeers, limited people, as Leninists are. They are mere ideologists, but we are universal thinkers, and ought not to be ashamed of our thoughts running freely over all things. Socialism is about freeing us all to be just so, not chaining us to restricted modes of thought approved for relevance by a politburo.
Wez, it doesn’t matter unless one is interested in history. A Leninist, though, might challenge you with “If China wasn’t feudal like Mao says, then what was it?”
What will you say? That you don’t know, so Mao must be right?
Or a neutral member of the public might ask, “What was China before capitalism? Was it feudal, like England?”
4. Viewed by 19th century bourgeois Europeans as a “putrifying corpse”, China was a society which humbly accepted the “impermanence of all things” as taught by Buddhism and saw the rise and fall of its ruling dynasties in this light. Each Chinese epoch contributed to human civilisation and Europe was late on the scene.
5. Chinese society regarded literature, the pursuit of the scholar, as the ultimate value. There was a democratic aspect to this, in that no social position could be inherited. Farmers owned and tilled their own land and every son, regardless of wealth, was permitted to sit the exams which provided entry to the bureaucracy. Of course, the son whose father held a bureaucratic post had a distinct advantage when it came, not only to reading and writing, but being enabled to actually pass the exams. Most farmers had no such time or luxury, and remained farmers. But they were free farmers, and they could find relief from the imperial tax on land by living on and working on estates belonging to scholars who, having risen in the bureaucracy via the exam system, had obtained posts bringing income allowing them to pay the tax on larger estates. So, it was a class society, but operated as a meritocracy. The sons of the officials did not inherit, but had to earn (via the exam system) the position their father had earned, or similar, in the bureaucracy. With all land belonging to the Emperor, there were no “landlords” as the Maoists speak of, but bureaucrats, whose subalterns might well misappropriate taxes and exploit poor farmers – which in fact was a rampant problem that successive emperors attempted to eradicate, never fully succeeding.
6. So, whilst farmers (peasants) tilled the land, or paid of the produce they cultivated on another’s land, so sharing his tax liability (a system nonetheless open to corruption), scholar-bureaucrats received salaries from the throne, higher or lower depending on the post filled.
Which leaves those others, the merchants, traders, craftsmen and artisans, architects and scientists, and doctors. These roles were familial, via apprenticeship from father to son, but also to adopted sons. These lived on salaries paid for their work, and tended to remain in the same families, passing their skills from generation to generation, outside of the scholastic system.I would have to compose it in English. Eye-strain is already a pain.
What I will do is summarise it here.1. For most of my life I accepted the traditional historical view of most Marxists, that Imperial China was a feudal society. That is what the Maoists and the Chinese govt still say. They also say that the system before their hero Chin Shih Huang was a chattel slavery society, which Confucius supported. Both are balderdash.
2. China never had a chattel slavery epoch, although slaves existed (as they existed among the Vikings). During Confucius’ lifetime, only north China existed, and it was split into feudal kingdoms. This was the Chou dynasty, and feudalism is apt to describe it. But it ended in the third century B.C.E., when Chin Shih Huang conquered the petty kings and created Imperial China.
The new imperial system then evolves but isn’t perfected until the anti-scholastic tyrant’s death and the re-introduction of a “scholasticratic” administration by the Han dynasty, (contemporary with ancient Rome).3. I believe Marx in later life had realised, in speaking of an Asian mode of production, that the European saga of social evolution could not be applied everywhere, although I also believe neither can an “Asian mode” be applied across all Asiatic lands. China had its own unique characteristics.
I also hope Marx, had he lived, would have apologised for echoing the bourgeois lauders of “civilising” colonialism, and take back his disgraceful comment that the European exploitation of China was “waking up the Chinese from centuries of stupidity”! How disgustingly eurocentric is that?!4. (Before 4, I must now rest, and will continue later).
No, and I have some respect for pacifists who are not socialists, but no respect for pseudo-socialists who support wars.
Movimiento, about China not having been feudal since the accession of Ch’in Shih Huang, I had to write a disclaimer to my Brief History of Humankind, wherein I had for decades wrongly believed Imperial China to be feudal (which is the Maoist doctrine).
In my disclaimer I have tried to elaborate how exactly, in my humble view, Imperial China’s society functioned.
Unfortunately I wrote it in Occitan for publication, but, since, Movimiento, you are an Hispanic speaker, you should be able to get the gist of it.LA CHINA DICHA «FEUDALA»
En escrivent ma Pichona istoria de l’humanitat ai fach de decas importantas quand parlava de la China imperiala. Cossi es facil de veire l’istoria dins lo prisma de la nòstra istoria europèa! Aquò es estada la costuma dels marxistas, sustot leninistas, qu’an volgut seguir un procès de l’istòria sociala qu’es uniforme e net. Aquel procès a quatre nivpels: 1) comunisme primitiu 2) esclavatge ancian 3) feudalisme e 4) capitalisme.
Aqueste es estat, e rèsta, lo catequisme istoric del Partit comunista chinés, seguissent fidelament los mestres bolchevics Lenin e Stalin, e los mots del «grand dirigent» el meteis, Mao Zedong. Es lo procès, d’a fons occidental, qu’es encara repetit per l’estat chinés, que seguís encara l’ideologia – segon l’istòria al mens – del PCC, e acceptat fins a plan recentament pels sinologistas. Mas, es pas vertadièr.
Lo feudalisme europèu, societat plan coneguda en çò de nosautres, societat de servatge, es alara transposada pels marxistas del sègles XIX e XX sus totas las societats pre-capitalistas, i compresa la China, per d’explicar lo procès de desvolopament istoric dins cada país. Aquò va plan per comprene l’istòria europèa, alavetz aquò va plan per totes! Mao a pintat alara la China imperiala coma un «empèri feudal», son aristocracia de barons a l’europèa, sos paisans – sobretot agachant lo Tibet – de sèrfs. Tanben en despit de sa naissensa paisana, Mao es persuadit el meteis pel catequisme istoric marxista-leninista, car es pas un istorian independent, mas un ideologista. E tot deu se conformar.
E alara, ieu-meteis ai seguit aquest procès dins ma Pichona istoria.
Cal reveire. L’estudi puèi m’a reveladas aquestas conclusions d’a fons diferentas.
La China feudala èra d’efièch una realitat abans de la consolidacion imperiala del segle III Abans de Crist. Lo feudalisme de l’epòca del Chou èra l’epòca ont vivián Confuci e Lao Tse – una societat de nombroses reis e princes feudals, coma vesèm pintada per Szu Ma-chien dins lo sieu Remembres de l’istorian.
Sens dobte èra un procès gradual, mas pendent los Han (epòca de l’empèri roman en çòo de nosautres) foguèt establida la China imperiala, una societat que demorariá fondamentalament integrala fins a la revolucion de 1911.
Marx, l’eròi de Mao, Marx l’admirasor del capitalisme, diguèt que lo colonialisme britanic liberariá enfin los Chineses de sègles de «estupiditat eiretada». Atal era la vista arroganta e ignoranta de la borgesiá occidentala: la China imperiala un cadavre pudent que resistissiá «lo progrès» de la «civilisacion».
Luenh d’èsser un «cadavre pudent» que restava dins una «estupiditat eiretada» a travèrs los sègles, la China imperiala era, a travèrs dels millenis, la civilisacion la mai importanta e la mai granda sus la planeta. Luenh d’èsser un fossil, era una civilisacion vibranta, ab l’umilitat de reconéisser que tot es impermanent. A travèrs de l’istòria chinesa las dinastias son nascudas e son destruchas segon aquest dire bodista. Cadun aviá sa civilisacion que batissiá suls acomplissaments de son antecedent.
Qu’èran alara las classas e qu’èra lo sistèma de produccion d’aqueste empèri pendent 2,000 annadas de son istèria senon lo feudalisme imaginat pels Occidentals, sobretot los marxistas-leninistas?
Tre la dinastia Han, lo sistèma chinés, e tipicament chinés, foguèt ja establit al nòrd del país. Una meritocracia centralisada que fornissiá la burocracia de l’autocratea. Aquesta burocracia-meritocracia èra e restarié – ab l’excepcion de periòdes episòdics de turbulencias intra regnum – lo sistèma fins a l’abdicacion del darrièr emperaire en 1911.
«Lo tresor real es possedir de libres, e una vida de repos mena vèrs l’immortalitat.»
(Confuci. De l’autobiografia de P’u Yi).
Una meritocracia fluida e mobila, fondada intellectualament sus la practica de la literatura e la poesia, e las maximas eticas confucianas – atal s’èra constituada çoò que la borgesiá industriala d’Euròpa e Karl Marx apelavan al sègle XIX «la estupiditat eiretada» dels sègles chineses!
Tota la societat servissiá las valors confucianas, e lo camin de la literatura e la poesia èra la mai estimada de totas las carrièras, e lo sistèma d’educacion lo reflechissiá. Aqueste sistèma educatiu èra dubèrt a cada drolle e cada òme chinés. (Las filhas e las femnas estant exclusas, cèrts individús solament exceptats a travèrs l’istòria de l’empèri). Cada paisan atendissiá l’escòla de son vilatge ont lo solet subjecte èra la literatura. L’escòla èra gratis, i compreses los examens imperials, dubèrts gratis a cada subjecte de l’empèri a travèrs de sa vida. Las recercas nos mostran que los filhs dels mandarins èran pas necessariment eles que trionfavan totjorn dins los examens, e mants filhs de paisans devenián mandarins a lor torn. Aquè èra convenable a l’estat, li assegurant la fluiditat de la burocracia e protegissent lo tron de l’ambicion nepotista sus la part dels oficials. Atal, un estat autocrata e absolutista favorissiá paradoxalament una sòrta de «democracia» al nivèl dels escolans, siàn paures siàn rics.
Alara, la mobilitat de las classas dins las epòcas d’estabilitat èra tipica, fondada sul merit de cadun. E cadun, dins una societat e cultura de grandas familhas estendudas, profitava del sosten dels seus.
Dejós l’emperaire e la familha imperiala, èra alavetz la meritocracia escolastica, d’eles qu’avián reussit als examens superiors de literatura e de poesia – classa regnanta, dubèrta a cadun que lo meritava. Classa regnanta en termes de burocracia: pas parasitica mas salariada, recebent son pagament sus l’escalièr del govèrn directe de la borsa del tron. E aquesta borsa replenida per mejan de la taxacion dels proprietaires.
Los meritocratas-escolastics devenián proprietaires de tèrras cultivadas pels paisans-rentièrs recebent lor partida de la tèrra, per consomar eles meteisses, o vendre. En cultivant la tèrra d’un oficial, lo paisan paure èra alara exempt de la taxa imperiala que lo proprietaire deviá pagar. Los paisans mai rics avián l’opcion de restar fermièrs-proprietaires independants, mas subjectes alara a la talha imperiala. (D’aquela classa veniá Mao el meteis).
Plan sovent los emperaires avián enveja de limitar lo nombre de tèrras crompadas pels oficials e mantengudas pels paisans-rentièrs, sistèma tristament vulnerable a la corrupcion. Un oficial-proprietaire viciós cubririá son pagament de la taxa per mejan d’augmentar las rentas qu’exigissiá de sos tenants. Aquò devendriá un problèma de mai en mai seriói a travèrs de l’istòria de l’empèri, e menariá a l’enemistat dels paisans per aquests «senhors» que resultariá enfin amb de chaples de la guèrra de T’aip’ing pendent las annadas 1850-60 e de la guèrra civila de las annadas 1930-50.
Aital era la classa paisana devessida en dos: fermièrs independents e fermiers tenants. Entre eles e los oficials-escolastics èran la classa mercantila, l’artisanat, e los mestièrs. Aqueles, dins una cultura de grandas familhas estendudas, ofrissián lors talents als oficials e al tron en arquitectura, irrigacion, sciencias, municions, ingenièrs, eca. Aquelas familhas emplegarián tanben eles de vila o de campanha en aprentissatge. Una borgesiá chinesa devendriá importanta sustot pendent las dinastias Sung et Ming, quand la China èra vertadierament la mai granda civilisacion sus tèrra. (Veire Michael Wood, L’Istòria de la China).
Los envasidors mongols e manchós èran sens dobte de culturas feudalas, mas la China los transformava, sobretot los Manchós qu’establiguèron lo Ch’ing, lo dernièr empèri (1644-1911).
Lo Tibet.
L’estat chinés modèrn fa mult a prepaus del «servatge» al Tibet jos los Dalai Lamas, mas dobti tanben aquò. Thubten Jigme Norbu dins son libre Tibet nos apren la fluiditat e mobilitat de la vida en Tibet, ont la noblessa èra tanben subjecta a un sistèma de meritocracia.
Sobretot aquestas societats e culturas èran brica «feudalas» al sens europèu, e meritan las recercas emancipadas dels nèstres prejutjats occidentals.Only those who knew what capitalism and socialism are. Most don’t, and that would have been the case then too, I would have thought. Of course Lenin and Stalin knew. I think Trotsky was naive though. But those who, in good faith across the world, rallied to Bolshevism’s banners wouldn’t have known and still don’t.
The quote by Stalin, above, shows too that he is not going for the later Bolshevik lie that socialism and communism are different things. He calls the future society socialism. Leninists of today will say no, he is describing communism, whilst what Stalin presides over is socialism, its precursor. Stalin himself here shows that that is NOT his real thinking at all!
Also, as regards socialism springing independently from Russia’s peasant society, maybe it was the Makhnovists who temporarily made that work, very briefly, before the Reds exterminated them?!
I guess Kropotkin was a Nazi too, for opposing Lenin? Not to mention Rosa Luxemburg and Emma Goldmann?
The Nazi Dalai Lama has written a superb book on science: The Universe in a Single Atom. I strongly recommend it. An excellent Nazi work!
MATERIALISM NEED NOT BE REDUCTIONIST.
