Some days ago, I had a rather spirited debate on Weibo with a left-leaning junior fellow. I’m not very fond of slapping labels like “right-wing” and “left-wing” on people, but this argument was indeed representative in a certain sense, so I need to note this junior fellow’s left-wing background. As for me, who sparked the argument, I was not aiming my dissatisfaction specifically at him; rather, I took the opportunity to express my long-standing opposition to the rhetoric of the so-called Mao left. I once stated my personal position in the essay “Liberty vs. Equality—I Am a Right-Wing Socialist,” but that was mainly constructive rather than refutational. Still, I’m willing to restate it in a more combative way.
Although I also do not entirely support many of the claims made by the so-called right wing, it is obvious that I am more opposed to the left. And the reason I rush to oppose the Mao left is not because of their attitude toward Mao, but because of their attitude toward “Chinese traditional culture.” In the eyes of the Mao left, the right wing is equivalent to “Western lackeys,” while the left, by contrast, becomes the inheritor of Chinese traditional culture. And I am also a cultural conservative; I too champion the continuation of Chinese tradition. As the saying goes, one need not fear a godlike opponent, only a piglike teammate. Marx was disgraced precisely by his most enthusiastic flatterers; now they flatter Mao as well, and I have no objection. But when they also begin to extol Chinese tradition, that is something that must arouse vigilance. If in the end people come to understand the right wing’s victory as the defeat of Chinese tradition, that would be a tremendous tragedy.
Since the discussion covered so much ground, I’ll repost it here as a separate blog entry, and then write a few more posts on some of the issues involved. For example, I might first write one called “Reading Mencius by Night,” then one called “Why Study Western Learning,” and then one called “Democracy and Reason,” and so on.
The following content is reposted from Weibo (my remarks are marked in bold):
napsol: Popular welfare absolutely does not equal democracy. Democracy can still be based on power, or based on capital~ Popular welfare may still mean that there is a sovereign, but the sovereign is light and the people are heavy. Does democracy really make the people heavy? Modern democracy is still constitutional democracy and representative democracy built on a system of power operations; modern democracy operates differently from ancient Greek democracy~
Me: What democracy cares about is fundamentally not who is “heavier,” but what it means to be “heavy.” We all agree that the people are heavy, but how exactly does one count as heavy? Is education heavy or eldercare heavy? Is employment heavy or healthcare heavy? Do the standards get to have the final say? What democracy is meant to solve is precisely this: public contention, the expression of diverse views, and, in the end, a collective decision about priorities and order of importance. So-called popular welfare, if the criteria depend on the secret plotting of a tiny clique, is tyranny. (March 16, 13:06)
I rather think democracy is concerned not with what it means to be heavy~ Public contention and the expression of diverse views are not democracy’s exclusive privilege. If popular welfare says this, is it tyranny? Was Mencius seeing King Liang Xiang also tyranny? How do diverse views and collective decision actually work? Can democracy really achieve collective decision? Then let’s have a small country with few people, and return to ancient Greek democracy~ (March 16, 13:14)
I rather think democracy is concerned not with what it means to be heavy~ Public contention and the expression of diverse views are not democracy’s exclusive privilege. If popular welfare says this, is it tyranny? Was Mencius seeing King Liang Xiang also tyranny? How do diverse views and collective decision actually work? Can democracy really achieve collective decision? Then let’s have a small country with few people, and return to ancient Greek democracy~ (March 16, 13:14)
Also, how many people exactly do you need before it no longer counts as a tiny clique? All 1.3 billion deciding together? (March 16, 13:36)
Perhaps King Liang Xiang could practice benevolent rule, but when Mencius met King Liang Xiang, he opened by saying that one “who does not delight in killing people” could unify the realm. Because all the other kings delighted in killing people, it was extremely rare to find one who did not, and then the whole multitude would naturally rally to him. Facts proved that the one who ultimately unified the realm was precisely a killer, so Mencius’ fantasy did not come true. But Mencius’ premise was probably true: that is, it is extremely hard for even a not-too-wicked ruler to appear. (March 16, 16:13)
The tyranny of the majority is an even worse tyranny. For example, using concepts like “popular welfare” and “people’s livelihood” as banners, borrowing the name of the majority of the populace, and implementing some particular standard—that is the tyranny of the majority. (March 16, 16:19)
So the key to democracy is contention, not voting; it is “anti-decision” rather than “decision.” The key to tyranny is not how small the secretive clique is, but how secret the conspiracy is. Before a decision is made, was there public debate and an opening up to criticism? Were the contradictions and conflicts within society fully released and displayed? (March 16, 16:28)
Senior brother should perhaps look at Mencius from a historical perspective. Maybe it is precisely he who constitutes the spirit of contention you speak of~ (March 16, 17:36)
Doesn’t democracy also work like this? Actual politics still has to be about practicality and effectiveness. Otherwise it is just utopia. Besides, Senior brother should have read “On the Six States” and “On the Qin”吧? (March 16, 17:38)
Practicality is very simple: open up freedom of speech and freedom of association; the rest is easy to discuss. Then form left and right parties, and slowly debate whether the people are democratic or not—it’s all fine. But the obstacle to this “opening up” lies precisely in demands like “popular welfare”: once opened up, disorder will inevitably follow, economic growth and social stability will be hindered, and just one “putting the people first” is enough to strangle reform. (March 16, 20:43)
Practicality isn’t that simple. The situation is not as simple as we keyboard political bureaus people, all day cooped up in the ivory tower, imagine~ “Reform” has become an ideology: it seems that reform must be good, and therefore it must be good~ (March 16, 22:30)
The reason practicality is simple is precisely because what we need right now is non-operation, non-control. The biggest problem with totalitarianism is that it wants to make everything perfect, but total control of everything is neither possible nor desirable. I believe reform is not necessarily good, but necessarily bad; according to the present social system, reform will certainly make things worse, but at the same time a new social system will be unpredictably gestated. (March 16, 22:35)
Precisely because reform will certainly make things worse, I oppose the logic of “popular welfare.” For according to the logic of taking the people and people’s livelihood as the foundation, reform that makes society worse is impossible to let pass. But what ultimately needs to be rebuilt is precisely the entire value system of society. (March 16, 22:39)
Once practicality is no longer taken into account, the final result is very likely to be uncontrollable~ Whose interests will suffer the greatest damage? Ordinary folks, of course~ In the end, freedom of speech amounts only to the so-called freedom and distribution of power among those who control media resources, wield capital, and command concepts~ I think speech is quite free right now. Weibo has even gone real-name, and aren’t we discussing problems right now? (March 16, 22:39)
I’m discussing with you, not with Mencius. What I see is “the final result is very likely to be uncontrollable~ Whose interests will suffer the greatest damage? Ordinary folks, of course” — that is the logic of what I understand as your so-called popular welfare, and it is precisely this line of thinking that I oppose. (March 16, 22:44)
Why do you oppose it? Why do I say this? The problem is precisely what lies behind it~ I think Senior brother is first of all misreading the Confucian notion of popular welfare, and is criticizing a popular welfare of his own understanding, so I think you should go and look at Mencius. Why does Mencius talk about the one-tenth tax? What is the logic of popular welfare behind it? (March 17, 11:46)
I rather think that, for ordinary people, stability is the greatest interest. (March 17, 11:47)
That is precisely why I oppose your so-called — I am not opposing Confucianism, unless you think you are sufficient to represent Confucianism, to represent Mencius — “popular welfare.” Ordinary people’s thinking is the result of the mainstream value system being intentionally or unintentionally instilled over many years. If freedom of speech is opened up, then after full debate, ordinary people’s values may also change; but if stability is taken as the foundation, then it will inevitably not be open. (March 17, 19:08)
What I am criticizing is of course the popular welfare as I understand it, just as you criticize democracy as you understand it. Don’t hide behind Mencius; don’t say, of course I have read Mencius, and even if I hadn’t, so what? I am not opposing Mencius, after all. Freedom of speech means not speaking on behalf of ordinary people, and not speaking on behalf of authority either; do not hide behind ordinary people, and do not hide behind authority. You represent only yourself. (March 17, 19:17)
That is your understanding of ordinary people. In fact, according to your view, then each person is only himself, and in the end politics becomes impossible~ But real politics is just like that~ (March 17, 21:29)
Who is to do the debating in “full debate”? Naturally, it is those who control resources and concepts. The so-called change in ordinary people’s values is nothing more than being fooled, just a different way of being fooled~ It’s just that you think ordinary people being fooled that way is better~ (March 17, 21:31)
Putting stability first, I never said not to open up, and I think it’s already quite open now. So long as we do not take actual anti-government action, we can say anything~ Which country would allow you to take actual action? Where exactly are we not open enough? It’s just that those who think we need to open up, I feel, are not really seeking freedom of speech; they want to seize power in a more grand-sounding way in order to fool ordinary people~ Our Party’s ability to fool people is too poor right now~ (March 17, 21:34)
Why is authority bad? Why is freedom of speech good? I think all this needs proof, rather than being stated with a value presupposition~ Why do you think my understanding of democracy is wrong, and yours is right? I think that also needs to be proven~ (March 17, 21:37)
I think there is no problem with not speaking on behalf of authority; not speaking on behalf of ordinary people is also fine. But as ordinary people ourselves, and grassroot folks at that, we all have to consider our own interests, and our immediate interests at that. How many isolated grassroot folks can express their own interests? In the end, opening up freedom of speech may just mean that the child who cries the loudest gets the milk~ You cry, and I cry too. I think my father and mother just don’t cry as well as yours or your parents; they’re only the most ordinary grassroot folks. (March 17, 21:41)
First, I did not say that your understanding of democracy is wrong, nor would I believe that anyone who does not support your so-called popular welfare must necessarily have misunderstood it. I do not want to prove that you do not understand democracy; of course I need to defend my own position, and that requires an environment of freedom of speech. If whenever someone opposes me I say, “You haven’t read this, you haven’t read that, so don’t talk to me,” then my own argument cannot even get started. (March 17, 23:46)
No matter who does the debating, debate at least means multiple voices. I do not think one kind of fooling is better than another; I think multiple kinds of fooling are better than a single kind of fooling. Ordinary people should be able to hear different voices. And right now, of course we can debate, and we can also jump the firewall, and have a chance to encounter all kinds of sharply opposed views, but ordinary people cannot hear the contention; they cannot see heterodoxy. (March 17, 23:52)
Senior brother says there is no need for anyone to represent ordinary people, and says he does not oppose Mencius. In my view, that is different from what Mencius said, which is why I told you to go read Mencius~ Confucian scholar-officials all have deep in their hearts an awareness of “establishing a destiny for the living multitudes.” In my view, ordinary people are not incapable of being represented; the key is who represents them, and how they are represented. China’s grassroot folks certainly cannot have their will ignored, but neither can they be represented arbitrarily. I believe what Mao Zedong said: one must investigate before one has the right to speak. (March 18, 08:20)
Multiple voices? If the extra voices have nothing to do with grassroot folks, or are contrary to their interests, then it’s better not to have them~ Voices do not just emerge because you want them to emerge; behind them is still discursive power, perhaps a collusion of knowledge, capital, and politics~ (March 18, 08:22)
Ordinary people not jumping the firewall does not mean they understand nothing. Perhaps precisely because they do not jump the firewall, their understanding is even more straightforward~ (March 18, 08:23)
When I said “represent,” I specifically said “do not speak on behalf of ordinary people”; of course I do not oppose other forms of representation. How does one gain the authority to “represent” ordinary people? You say you investigated, he says he investigated; who is to judge the relative merits of different investigation reports? According to me, there must be public debate, and the final judgment should be returned to ordinary people. Unless you believe that any investigation will necessarily produce the same conclusion, but that is impossible, unless it is still the result of discursive power and collusion. (March 18, 13:15)
You cannot treat “grassroot folks” as a monolithic abstract concept. In fact, the interests of “the grassroot folks” will necessarily contain conflicts; some grassroot folks’ interests have nothing to do with others, and some grassroot folks’ wishes are the opposite of others’ demands. I value the people, and therefore I see the people as a real plurality, not as an abstract symbol. Since the people are bound to have differences, those differences should be expressed at the level of discourse. (March 18, 13:21)
Precisely because the people have some most basic interests~ And besides, are the people themselves rational about their own interests? I recently looked at some rights-protection cases, and in the end it was just a double loss for both the government and the grassroot folks… (March 18, 20:33)
The reason there are rights-protection cases with double losses is precisely because the people’s demands cannot find an appropriate channel for expression. I have always said that unions, student associations, village committees, and other forms of association or organization must have as their purpose not serving the people, but fighting for the people. Freedom of association is the guarantee that the people’s demands can be expressed rationally. (March 19, 13:50)
Perhaps you think that since the people cannot express their views rationally, then they should not express them, and you can just “investigate” for them. But no matter how preoccupied you are, you cannot investigate the whole picture. The people have plural conditions and conflicting interests. And who has the qualification to investigate? Who will review the investigations? Who will study and formulate policy? You say you are rational; I say I am rational; who gets the final say? In the end, won’t it still be the vested interests who hold power that get to speak? (March 19, 14:32)
I want to say that the double loss was not because no suitable organization was found; it was precisely after association~ Real political operation is always far more complicated than something like democracy, freedom, and association. (March 19, 14:54)
This is the same issue as the discussion at the time about Wu Ying’s fundraising. I believe that without lawful channels of association, any association will become a black association, and naturally it cannot act in a steady and rational manner. In addition, I have always emphasized the complexity of politics, so it is not something a tiny clique can settle with a bit of investigation; what is needed is bottom-up self-organization. A naturally formed organic system is always more complex than any artificial machine. (March 19, 16:34)
Real political operation is complex; it is not something that can be solved by shouting slogans like democracy, freedom, or popular welfare. But you seem to think that reading Mencius and doing some investigations can still accomplish overall coordination. I, however, believe politics is more complex, beyond the degree to which any strategy can control it; therefore, “freedom” is a wise relinquishment, letting the forces of self-organization grow on their own. (March 19, 16:39)
I didn’t say that overall coordination is possible. I read Mencius because I think Senior brother has not understood Mencius; doing investigations, I think, is the basis for speaking~ As I see the present situation, there is no guarantee that spontaneous growth will turn toward goodness~ I don’t want to bring up the Wu Ying case; I think it’s reheating old leftovers~ Sometimes when things are hot, we can’t see clearly~ A naturally formed organic system is better, perhaps because it relates to the basic assumptions Senior brother has about politics~ (March 19, 17:14)
If you do not think overall coordination is possible, then who do you think should carry out “political operation”? Who should implement the idea of popular welfare? Who is the guarantee of goodness? (March 19, 18:56)
Of course, I have certain basic assumptions about politics, and you have yours as well; these assumptions determine each side’s standard for “good.” Everyone hopes society will move toward goodness and hopes the people will become better, but who gets to decide the standards for good and better? You tell me to read Mencius, and I can tell you to read Kant. You say you have investigated these things; I say you have not seen others. Who should submit to whom? Everyone always feels they have the right to speak—that is the key. (March 19, 19:02)
Mencius’ popular welfare played its role in Chinese history precisely through forces outside the court~ I did not criticize Kant, but Senior brother directly criticized Mencius~ In political society, I think the people who do overall coordination are politicians. We, the intellectuals outside the court, can never truly represent the people. We are holed up in the ivory tower, and perhaps only imagine the people’s suffering through the internet~ My biggest gain these past few years was at least having the chance to go down to the grassroots, so I have no interest in freedom and democracy (March 19, 19:13)
The singular form “the people” is precisely why the people most need Mencius~ What can become a powerful singular or plural is always those who hold discursive power, concepts, capital, and power~ That is why I dislike talking about the freedom and democracy that intellectuals like to talk about; I think there are too many Western presuppositions behind these concepts, so I would rather use the Chinese terms already inherent in our own tradition~ Behind Western vocabulary lies discursive power, and the arbiters are never us~ (March 19, 19:16)
Where did I criticize Mencius directly? You mentioned Mencius’s meeting with King Liang Xiang, and I made one rebutting remark; my intent was not to criticize Mencius, but to question what exactly you think citing that matter can prove. Yet you never clearly stated how you understand Mencius yourself; you only told me to go read Mencius. So I changed the subject. I had never meant to get entangled in the question of Mencius anyway; Mencius was only one example you brought up in our discussion, so why should I go read it when you yourself won’t develop the point? (March 19, 19:28)
What the issue is now is that the existing system, the existing vested interests, and the existing rulers are none of them things from the Chinese tradition; how many concepts from the Chinese tradition are there in the current policies and laws? If we rolled back to the late Qing, I would certainly side with the monarchists, but the problem is that tradition has now been broken off. Can maintaining “stability” revive tradition? What exactly can rejecting Western concepts preserve? Mencius’s concepts, or Mao’s concepts? (March 19, 19:34)
I feel that what modern Chinese politics ultimately is, people have very different views, and I don’t want to say much about whether tradition has really been broken. Also, I think that under any political model there are vested-interest groups; it just depends on how the interests are distributed~ In China, I think those now calling for reform, especially those who control the discourse system and demand reform, are more likely trying to redistribute power; the people are only a banner~ (March 19, 19:39)
From the very beginning you shifted the topic. The direct purpose of that Weibo post of mine was simply to show that I don’t like using Western concepts, and you immediately elevated it into something grand. If I want to talk about my own understanding, you’d also say that’s just your understanding, wouldn’t you~ (March 19, 19:40)
I also want to say that the people in China who now advocate stability and use the people as their banner are even more attached to power. If we attack each other in that way, then there’s no way to discuss anything. Besides, do those who demand democracy all demand control of the discourse system? Not necessarily. The most basic meaning of democracy is the diversification of the discourse system; no single group can possibly monopolize discursive power. (March 19, 20:48)
napsol: The discursive power behind Western concepts will never belong to us Chinese people, so when discussing certain issues, I don’t like using Western concepts such as freedom, democracy, and human rights. In the discussion of these concepts, we Chinese people are forever in an “inferior” position, and behind them may lie many value assumptions that we can never convert and interpret away. So I am more willing to use China’s own inherited vocabulary. I hope we can integrate and innovate (in the words of Mr. Zhang Dainian), carry forward the sages and cut off the classics
Every kind of discourse presupposes a paradigm behind it. When we use Western discourse, we are in fact unconsciously acknowledging the Western paradigm~ Does this mean that once we leave Western discourse or the Western paradigm, we have no way to talk about Chinese issues? There is one point on which I greatly admire Chairman Mao: he could use the language most familiar to the people to explain principles clearly to ordinary folk, rather than using abstract concepts~ I can’t do that, but I do want to learn from Chairman Mao~
“Revolution” is not a Western concept? “Reactionary” is not a Western concept? “Class” is a traditional Chinese everyday colloquial term? It is not that Mao used language familiar to the people; rather, Mao made the people familiar with these terms. (March 19, 21:31)
“Revolution” comes from the Book of Changes; since ancient times China has spoken of the Tang-Wu Revolution. “Reactionary” comes from the Tao Te Ching. In colloquial usage, “class” refers to a step. The translation of these terms actually points to another issue~ The key is that Chairman Mao could speak about these issues clearly using the language most familiar to people, rather than concepts; it was precisely by relying on such ability that he made people familiar with these terms~ (March 19, 23:09)
Democracy and freedom, of course, are also present in the classical texts~ The key is that only Chairman Mao had the discursive power to instill these terms into the masses. In the televised debates of the U.S. elections now, which politician does not explain political issues to the public in the most straightforward language? Postman was heartbroken over this, saying politics was becoming infantilized… Right now speech is not open, and debate is confined to the ivory tower; of course it is hard to make it popular. Once argument is opened up, it becomes hard for political discourse not to be plain and accessible. (March 19, 23:24)
One more addition: I oppose wholesale Westernization, especially the universal suffrage system. And the unstoppable vulgarization of discourse is the main reason why I also oppose Western-style universal suffrage. (March 19, 23:30)
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply