[Al Khabir]

This is the second draft of the piece formerly incorrectly titled Confucian Communism (thanks for pointing that one out Jaakko). Any feedback will as always be greatly appreciated. This is part one of two.


A Short Essay on Confucianism, and its Relevance to the Modern Socialist


"The philosopher Confucius was undoubtedly one of the greatest not only of his time, but of all historical periods. Writing slightly before the much lauded Greek philosophers, he has been largely ignored in the west, much to our detriment. What this article will seek to do is clarify the philosophy of Confucius, and then to dissect it. Most importantly of all, I will seek to explain the relevance of his teaching today, a link to my own philosophy of Confucian Socialism of which I believe the old sage would have approved.

Confucius (from Kong Fu-Tze- Kong the teacher) was a man to whom tradition was everything- even in his early life he was dedicated to the way of his ancestors. When his mother died we are told that he staged a funeral in the elaborate style of previous generations, putting his neighbours to shame and apparently causing the entire country to return to the original methods of burial. If this was not a return to the traditional ways of filial piety, I do not know what could be considered thus.

Chinese culture of the time was in a slight decline from the previous period, which had fundamentally involved brotherly love for ones fellow man, and a respect for ones parents (this is what is known as filial piety). What Confucius especially wanted to do was to maintain these healthy trends within society to prevent a birth of immorality within the population as a whole. The main reason that culture seemed to be declining was because of the change in leaders from the Warlords of old who had fought for their land and gained wisdom and honour from doing so, to their spoiled children who would often abuse their power to the detriment of their state and of their people. The warlords, tempered in battle, would often turn to sages and wise men for their assistence, a practice which
Confucius felt was being neglected by their heirs.

This is what really made Confucius angry- the misuse of power. Aside from promoting brotherly love and filial piety (“the roots of benevolence”) as the basis of society, he recognised that in order for a healthy society to exist, it required a healthy government, and vice versa. In his
opinion the two were spokes on the same wheel- in lacking one you lack both. Therefore, Confucius invented his own idea of how the state should be run. He based it mainly around “the rites” which he refers to so often in his work, ancient laws and codes of conduct formulated before his time. What he wanted was a state in which the rulers (i.e. the warlords) would act with the traditional brotherly love and respect towards their citizens, and should serve their state above all else (in Asian philosophy, the terms “the state” and “the people” are often interchangeable).

So these are the fundamentals of Confucian philosophy: Brotherly love, filial piety, respect for tradition and the state before the individual. At first glance these veiws may seem more than a little reactionary, outdated and irrelevant to most. However, taken in historical context they
become something of vital importance.

Let us first discuss the traditionalism within the purist Confucian philosophy. Within this traditionalism there was not the usual conservative desire to remain the same, but in fact the desire for a change (of this is not a contradiction). During a period when the oppression of the warlord rulers of China was reaching a height, the wish for a return to the old ways was a perfectly reasonable decision- it wasneither idealistic or nostalgic- it was simply stating the facts that if the warlords behaved as they were advised to within the rites, the suffering of the peasants would be far lessened.

Another common accusation levelled at traditionalism is the respect for religion which many believe irrational. Here once again Confucius does not share the usual veiws of the traditionalists- here he talks of the gods:

"There may be some meaning in them, and they may affect your welfare in a way you do not know of. And for the genii and spirits, sacrifice unto them; I have nothing to tell regarding them, whether they exist or not; but their worship is a part of an august and awful ceremonial, which a
wise man will not neglect or despise."

In other words, he shared a far more modern view with us. He was an agnostic as regards religeon; He is therefore exempted in my opinion from the charge of being resistant to change- on the contrary I believe that he naturally wished to return to the old ways because they were such an improvement on the politics of his own time.
Perhaps most important of all however is his acceptance of the dictatorship of the warlords. It should be explained to all lovers of democracy however that when the ideas of Confucius were
written down, even the idea of democracy was unknown in the east. That the masses could rule themselves without a benevolent leader would probably have seemed laughable to him. It is my personal opinion however that he would certainly have supported democratic measures had they been present at the time, due to his fervent wish for fairness within society .

How is Confucianism relevant?

And so the issue of state before individual brings us nicely to my own theory of “Socialist Confucianism”. As with most Asian philosophy, Confucius believed that what was good for the state was good for the individual. Therefore the ruler should act in the interests of society as a
whole and allow the benefits to trickle down to the individuals involved in making up the state
(including himself). I see it like this-

we do not put the individual cell that makes up the human body first, so it seems un-natural to put the interest of the odd individual before the interest of society as a whole.

Confucianism appeals to practical men. It calls upon all to cultivate such virtues as are seemly in citizens - industry, modesty, sobriety, gravity, decorum and thoughtfulness.

What Confucius taught us is that in fact when progressing to a new age as we are now, it is important to look back on the works of our ancestors and to take from them the good things that they achieved to add to our own society. He taught that gentlemanliness and kindness to others is
the most important trait that can be possessed.

But where Confucianism is most important is when analysing the revolutionary ideology of Marxism. Although a man opposed to revolution (“there has not been a man determined to change things who was not inclined to offend those above”) and often a supporter of the upper
class against the common people, I believe that we cannot judge him on these facts. What is important is as always the historical context of the time. We must again remember that this was a time when no revolution had ever been close to successful, nor had one been fought for altruistic
reasons. When they were marginally successful, rebellions were normally led by bandit chieftains,
men without culture, honour or love of knowledge. This was why Confucius stood against revolution and for the upper class- not because he liked what they were doing, but because they were far preferable to the bandits and peasant rebels of the time. Had he lived during the time of
the 1917 revolution when it was proved that revolutionaries can be intelligent men seeking to depose idiotic dictators who care nothing for their people, I think he would have been totally in favour. His class bias also stems from his love of learning and his dislike for those who do not
possess it. He looked down sometimes on the peasants because they generally had no access to knowledge. This is one point of veiw which I will not try to defend. I do know that some of his disciples were from among the poor though, so perhaps his comments to this effect may be only only ill-considered rather than cruel.

Confucianism in its traditionalistic ways may seem a formidable ally to the state, but in this new throw away culture of ours there is little that the philosopher would have approved of. We must therefore consider the possibility of some new type of revolutionary Confucianism emerging. A
philosophy guided by but not bound to the teachings of the wise old sage. should it emerge, I believe that this may well be a new hope for mankind."






As before, I look foward to any feedback. The second part of the essay will cover what this new revolutionary Confucianism might be, how it might amerge and how it could acheive power.

[Al Khabir]

Looking for any response before I disappear for a week...

[Jesse]

I'll analyze this word-for-word when I get back from football practice tonight, I do hope you'll still be here.

[Jesse]

The philosopher Confucius was undoubtedly one of the greatest not only of his time, but of all historical periods. Writing slightly before the much lauded Greek philosophers, he has been largely ignored in the west, much to our detriment. What this article will seek to do is clarify the philosophy of Confucius, and then to dissect it. Most importantly of all, I will seek to explain the relevance of his teaching today, a link to my own philosophy of Confucian Socialism of which I believe the old sage would have approved.



Confucius (from Kong Fu-Tze- Kong the teacher) was a man to whom tradition was everything- even in his early life he was dedicated to the way of his ancestors. When his mother died we are told that he staged a funeral in the elaborate style of previous generations, putting his neighbours to shame and apparently causing the entire country to return to the original methods of burial. If this was not a return to the traditional ways of filial piety, I do not know what could be considered thus.

I must confess my sole knowledge of Confucius is based off of several short pocketbooks of quotations. I do, however, hope that your essay can enlighten me further on his principles.

Chinese culture of the time was in a slight decline from the previous period, which had fundamentally involved brotherly love for ones fellow man, and a respect for ones parents (this is what is known as filial piety). What Confucius especially wanted to do was to maintain these healthy trends within society to prevent a birth of immorality within the population as a whole. The main reason that culture seemed to be declining was because of the change in leaders from the Warlords of old who had fought for their land and gained wisdom and honour from doing so, to their spoiled children who would often abuse their power to the detriment of their state and of their people. The warlords, tempered in battle, would often turn to sages and wise men for their assistence, a practice which Confucius felt was being neglected by their heirs.

Autocracies and monarchies are dangereous and illogical - I agree with this point. However, excessive respect for the parents can create different opinions within the society.

This is what really made Confucius angry- the misuse of power. Aside from promoting brotherly love and filial piety (“the roots of benevolence”) as the basis of society, he recognised that in order for a healthy society to exist, it required a healthy government, and vice versa. In his opinion the two were spokes on the same wheel- in lacking one you lack both.

I was unaware that he was this enlightened politically, and thusly, so close to my own beliefs (doesn't that sound vain?)

Therefore, Confucius invented his own idea of how the state should be run. He based it mainly around “the rites” which he refers to so often in his work, ancient laws and codes of conduct formulated before his time. What he wanted was a state in which the rulers (i.e. the warlords) would act with the traditional brotherly love and respect towards their citizens, and should serve their state above all else (in Asian philosophy, the terms “the state” and “the people” are often interchangeable).

The similarity between The Citizenry and the State isn't often enough recognzed in Western society. In addition, I find this desire for "enlightened leadership" is quite similar to Plato's principles of leadership.

So these are the fundamentals of Confucian philosophy: Brotherly love, filial piety, respect for tradition and the state before the individual. At first glance these veiws may seem more than a little reactionary, outdated and irrelevant to most. However, taken in historical context theybecome something of vital importance.

Brotherly Love and the State before the Individual - those are both totally up-to-date and relevant. However, traditionalism and the nuclear family are things of the past, best occasionally looked back upon with distain and embarrasment.

Let us first discuss the traditionalism within the purist Confucian philosophy. Within this traditionalism there was not the usual conservative desire to remain the same, but in fact the desire for a change (of this is not a contradiction). During a period when the oppression of the warlord rulers of China was reaching a height, the wish for a return to the old ways was a perfectly reasonable decision- it wasneither idealistic or nostalgic- it was simply stating the facts that if the warlords behaved as they were advised to within the rites, the suffering of the peasants would be far lessened.

I fear I misinterpret this - but what you mean is a Tradition of Maintaining a stable and prosperous society. This is good, pointless and archaic worship of the failures of the past isn't very productive, in my opinion.

Another common accusation levelled at traditionalism is the respect for religion which many believe irrational. Here once again Confucius does not share the usual veiws of the traditionalists- here he talks of the gods:

"There may be some meaning in them, and they may affect your welfare in a way you do not know of. And for the genii and spirits, sacrifice unto them; I have nothing to tell regarding them, whether they exist or not; but their worship is a part of an august and awful ceremonial, which a
wise man will not neglect or despise."

Worshipping and offering tribute to a God 'just in case' it exists is suprisingly foolish. While he is clever enough to not confront the question of the existance of a God, the fact he still respects the concept denotes a lack of aggresivity in pursueing backwardness.

In other words, he shared a far more modern view with us. He was an agnostic as regards religeon; He is therefore exempted in my opinion from the charge of being resistant to change- on the contrary I believe that he naturally wished to return to the old ways because they were such an improvement on the politics of his own time.

Agnosticism is a rare and laudable attribute, especially in the older times, however, one expects better of so wise a philosopher.

Perhaps most important of all however is his acceptance of the dictatorship of the warlords. It should be explained to all lovers of democracy however that when the ideas of Confucius were
written down, even the idea of democracy was unknown in the east. That the masses could rule themselves without a benevolent leader would probably have seemed laughable to him. It is my personal opinion however that he would certainly have supported democratic measures had they been present at the time, due to his fervent wish for fairness within society .

I do believe that Confucius would embrace a democratic system that embraces order and stability - two elements that seem to be near to his heart. I'd imagine it'd be closer to a Greek democracy - i.e the rich, nationalist, educated land-owners 'voted'.

How is Confucianism relevant?

And so the issue of state before individual brings us nicely to my own theory of “Socialist Confucianism”. As with most Asian philosophy, Confucius believed that what was good for the state was good for the individual. Therefore the ruler should act in the interests of society as a
whole and allow the benefits to trickle down to the individuals involved in making up the state
(including himself). I see it like this-

we do not put the individual cell that makes up the human body first, so it seems un-natural to put the interest of the odd individual before the interest of society as a whole.

*applause*. I've used the cellular metaphor many times to describe my politics, however, may I offer a variation. I compare each person to an organ - because everyone is important. The body can survive having thousands of cells perish. However, just as each organ performs a vital role, each Citizen does. We can scarce afford to loose our kidneys, can we?

Confucianism appeals to practical men. It calls upon all to cultivate such virtues as are seemly in citizens - industry, modesty, sobriety, gravity, decorum and thoughtfulness.

These are all important attributes of a Citizen.

What Confucius taught us is that in fact when progressing to a new age as we are now, it is important to look back on the works of our ancestors and to take from them the good things that they achieved to add to our own society. He taught that gentlemanliness and kindness to others is the most important trait that can be possessed.

I would view this with skepticism. The past is a dirty affair, and while I agree totally we should only take what need from it, meddling in it excessively could muddle and mire our social advancement.

But where Confucianism is most important is when analysing the revolutionary ideology of Marxism. Although a man opposed to revolution (“there has not been a man determined to change things who was not inclined to offend those above”) and often a supporter of the upper class against the common people, I believe that we cannot judge him on these facts. What is important is as always the historical context of the time. We must again remember that this was a time when no revolution had ever been close to successful, nor had one been fought for altruistic reasons. When they were marginally successful, rebellions were normally led by bandit chieftains, men without culture, honour or love of knowledge. This was why Confucius stood against revolution and for the upper class- not because he liked what they were doing, but because they were far preferable to the bandits and peasant rebels of the time. Had he lived during the time of the 1917 revolution when it was proved that revolutionaries can be intelligent men seeking to depose idiotic dictators who care nothing for their people, I think he would have been totally in favour. His class bias also stems from his love of learning and his dislike for those who do not possess it. He looked down sometimes on the peasants because they generally had no access to knowledge. This is one point of veiw which I will not try to defend. I do know that some of his disciples were from among the poor though, so perhaps his comments to this effect may be only only ill-considered rather than cruel.

I have nothing to comment upon this paragraph, save your good reasoning to remind us of the historical context and situation in which he found himself.

Confucianism in its traditionalistic ways may seem a formidable ally to the state, but in this new throw away culture of ours there is little that the philosopher would have approved of. We must therefore consider the possibility of some new type of revolutionary Confucianism emerging. A philosophy guided by but not bound to the teachings of the wise old sage. should it emerge, I believe that this may well be a new hope for mankind.

I look forward to seeing how you'd do the Old Man proud!

[Al Khabir]

Autocracies and monarchies are dangereous and illogical - I agree with this point. However, excessive respect for the parents can create different opinions within the society.

I can see your point: I agree that parenting can be dangerous, but on the other hand it is the general principle of respect for all elders that is highly beneficial to any society. I should perhaps stress this more within the article.

I was unaware that he was this enlightened politically, and thusly, so close to my own beliefs (doesn't that sound vain?)

Yes, I was personally quite surprised by this when I first began to read Confucius. Remember though that as many of his passages can be initially obtuse it is often easy to read into them things which you yourself wish to see: this is my personal opinion on the matter. He realises that if a state is to be healthy it requires a benificent ruler, and often speaks of how by cultivating gentalmanliness the ruler will encourage this growth among his subordinates, and that they have a duty as gentlemen to "establish the roots, to allow the way to grow", I.E. to practice benificence in order to encourage it in those above. It may well have been written not as a political statement, but I believe it serves excellently as one.

I find this desire for "enlightened leadership" is quite similar to Plato's principles of leadership.

Very true (the two did write at roughly the same time, with Confucius smugly earlier). Where the two differ is that Confucius, like Hobbes, was a monarchist. He believed that the monarchy (when they follow the rites) are the only ones who could restore order within a country gone astray. This comes again from the contesxt in which Confucius was writing, in which the "divine right of kings" had already been established for centuries without opposition. Plato, in contrast, came from a background in which this principle had not taken root, within an early democracy. This led him to realise that any skilled man could govern successfully.

but what you mean is a Tradition of Maintaining a stable and prosperous society

This is almost right- It is actually the wish for a return to the more stable and prosperous society of the past. I admit that worshipping past faliure is not advised, but revering hte great deeds of your ancestors should be allowed in my opinion. This will build pride within the community about themselves and their heritage. What Confucius desired was not to worship the mistakes of the past but to bring back the old social codes.

Worshipping and offering tribute to a God 'just in case' it exists is suprisingly foolish. While he is clever enough to not confront the question of the existance of a God, the fact he still respects the concept denotes a lack of aggresivity in pursueing backwardness.

Once again I would refer you to historical context. Not only was little knownn about phenomena of the natural world (which were attributed to gods) but as mentioned before, the divine right of kings was well established. Had Confucius denied the exsistance of a gods outright he would certainly have been ignored for the rest of his life, possibly even killed.

Thatks very much for the tips on the human organ metaphor, and also for all your comments. As I said, I am going away for a week so I will probably not have a chance to post the rest of the essay. I hope I do not miss the next part of the Civitas series, which I am thoroughly enjoying. I just wanted to write this one to clarify a few things.