-- A translation from Chinese of Part II-3(9,10) of the book:

Where is the Mankind Heading for:

Contests and realignments between ideologies in the new century

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here are two excerpts from the author’s book in Chinese on philosophy and social theories published in 2013. The book partially summarizes the results of the author’s decades-long exploration in the realm of ideology and is rich in ideas both old and new at the same time – new expositions in modern terminology of traditional Chinese thought as applied to social issues and ideologies of the world today. Any comment and criticism and any offer to help improve the English translation of the whole book will be welcome and appreciated. For a list of contents of the book with links to other translated parts, please see:

Where is the Mankind Heading for: Contests and realignments between ideologies in the new century: List of content

THE TEXT

II. Human Society: A dynamically-balanced multi-dimensional whole (continued)

II-3. Dynamic balance of multi-dimensional whole (continued)

II-3(9). Balance-seeking and Inward sageness and external kingliness: Being “proletarian” both materially and spiritually

Imbalances in social and man-nature relations can be traced to different levels of existence.

Viewing human history as a whole, we can generally pinpoint egocentrism of individuals and of collective social bodies of various levels as well, egocentrism centered on the unrestrained pursuit of material desires, as the root cause for destroying overall balances on the different societal levels from inside the individuals up through the families, ethnic groups, local communities, nation-states, civilization circles, to human commonwealth at the top. But when we come to a specific area at a specific time, we should try to find on which societal level and in which collective group’s egocentrism lies the root cause for social imbalances, instead of putting the blame on all parties, so as to suit the remedy to the case and restore social balance.

In modern human society, the ultimate cause for severely unbalanced world relationships is the Western capitalist economic-political system and its accompanying ideology. And in the contemporary world, the major culprit is the global monopoly capitalist forces together with all the economic-political-cultural mechanisms serving their interests.

Therefore, to restore global balances, people should target monopoly capital together with its political and cultural agencies in their struggle while enlightening more people through such struggles on the harmfulness of the capitalist system with private ownership and on the necessity of restraining and regulating capital and material desires. The purpose of struggles should be to restore balances. This is what “dynamic balance” means. It is to “enforce justice on behalf of Heaven”(替天行道). Confronted with hegemonic forces with such power and rampancy, the world’s people need to organize themselves, find strong leadership, hammer out effective strategies and fight to win in well-planned steps. Among all these factors, leadership is the key. And such leadership will shape up naturally with the spread and intensification of people’s spontaneous fight (though such “spontaneity” would not be liked by liberalists as, ironically, professed advocates of “spontaneous social order”). And what is crucial to leadership is its inner character -- this is a most costly lesson drawn from the world socialist movement and paid for with blood and tears.

What kind of inner quality is needed in the leadership for the final victory of the fight? The answer has been there for long in the wisdom of ancient China: “inward sageness and external kingliness”.

The expression “inward sageness and external kingliness” (ISEK) first appeared in Zhuangzi ·Thien Hsiâ (《庄子·天下篇》):

“There is that which gives birth to the Sage, and that which gives his perfection to the King: the origin of both is the One…. There ensued great disorder in the world, and sages and worthies no longer shed their light on it. The Tao [Dao] and its characteristics ceased to be regarded as uniform. Many in different places got one glimpse of it, and plumed themselves on possessing it as a whole… The case was that of the scholar of a corner who passes his judgement on all the beautiful in heaven and earth, discriminates the principles that underlie all things, and attempts to estimate the success arrived at by the ancients. Seldom is it that such an one can embrace all the beautiful in heaven and earth, or rightly estimate the ways of the spiritual and intelligent; and thus it was that the Tao, which inwardly forms the sage and externally the king, became obscured and lost its clearness, became repressed and lost its development. Every one in the world did whatever he wished, and was the rule to himself.” （Trans. James Legge）

What Zhuangzi was describing is about the Warring States period in China’s history, in which he lived, but unfortunately is still so much relevant to the world situation today.

Regarding “ISEK”, there has been abundant discussion in China’s Daoist, Legalist and Confucianist classics. To put in a nutshell, “inward sageness” means, at its core, self-cultivation of virtue with freedom from excessive desire and readiness to follow the Way of Heaven, while “external kingliness”, to govern and benefit the people in line with the Heavenly Dao. And running through both is the balance-seeking approach, that is, to try one’s best to maintain a multidimensional Yin-Yang balance of the society as a whole with a view to the realization of world harmony. That is to say, in order to lead the world’s peoples toward the achievement of a comprehensive dynamic balance on the scale of the whole human community, besides, epistemologically, a view of the world, of the society and of one’s own life that is in alignment with the Dao of Heaven, one has to have the motivation and resolve to definitely abandon egocentrism of all sorts, including parochial nationalism, so as to sweep away all hindrances to the practice of the Heavenly way.

As is related to the contemporary world situation, it is necessary to discuss the concept of “the proletariat”. In relation to “human emancipation” as expounded by Karl Marx, being “proletarian” does not only refer to the proletariat’s material conditions under which it is deprived of the ownership of means of production but to a state of mind as well in which one does not pursue private ownership of means of production. A complete definition of “the proletariat” must comprehend both connotations.

Therefore, “the proletariat” is not exactly the same as the “working class” and individual workers are not necessarily all qualified members of the proletariat. Those workers heavily imbued with and unable to break away from bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideas, especially lumpen-proletarians may easily be bewitched and utilized by political agents of the bourgeois class, selling their souls for selfish gains and becoming accomplices of the propertied class. Or they may, out of a mixed feeling of envy for and resentment of the rich, get involved into the fight waged by the proletariat while never conscious of the necessity of transforming their own outlook on life, thus finally betraying their real motivation in joining the revolutionary ranks of the proletariat, that is, to become bourgeois magnates themselves. This shows that these people, though propertyless materially, are property-pursuers spiritually and, so, do not belong to the proletariat in its complete sense. We definitely cannot place our bet on such people for the cause of the liberation of all mankind.

On the other hand, of all social classes, including other laboring classes, the industrial working class in general, because of its economic status, is most prone to accept the truth that the proletariat cannot achieve its own emancipation without that of the whole mankind at the same time. Under the guidance of a correct policy line, a majority of its members are most likely to become qualified members of the proletariat. That is why the socialist cause pursued by the proletariat should never be alienated from the working class as its social base. Any cause that does not rely itself on the latter as its mainstay but claiming itself to be “socialist” must be one of bourgeois socialism, having nothing to do with that of the proletariat.

To say that the working class people in general are most likely to become qualified members of the proletariat does not imply that people with other class backgrounds are not able to become such members. As has been proved by numerous historical instances, many who have a petty bourgeois or even exploiting class background but have acquired socialist consciousness have not only become qualified members but have finally become leaders of the proletariat and made great contributions to the cause of human emancipation. However, the petty bourgeoisie as a whole class, still less the big bourgeoisie, cannot be counted on for the accomplishment of such a cause, no matter how fine and pleasant their rhetoric sounds.

Thus we can say that “being spiritually and materially proletarian” is the same as “ISEK” in traditional Chinese thought and practice. What is “sageness”? Nothing but selflessness, or not seeking personal wealth or fame or power. What is “kingliness”? Nothing but devotedness to the benefits of all people, or seeking overall balance and harmony under heaven.

Seeing both the material and the spiritual side of the proletariat and how it is related to the industrial working class will make it possible to see the self-liberation of all humanity and the historical mission of the proletariat as one same cause, not two. When understood this way, then, emancipation of the mankind can be anticipated.

II-3(10). Selfhood with relative autonomy and assertiveness with self-restraint: To minimize confrontation and promote balance

“ISEK” is mainly meant for elites who play a leading role in social affairs. Any society cannot do without such an elite class. Hence, ISEK is absolutely important. If a society has been evolving in a normal way, there would be more elites with ISEK qualities and the society reach a higher level of civilization.

On the other hand, there are always gaps between people in moral and intelligent qualities. On should not expect each and every person in any society to reach the same equal height in such attainments. Therefore, as regards the average population, it is necessary to guide them in cultivating their inner character, based on the actual levels of their spiritual attainment, so as to be able to live in harmony with the whole society. Only if and when most or all members of the society are conscientiously elevating themselves spiritually, would the number and spiritual attainments of social elites be enhanced like boats floating higher with a rising river as a Chinese household saying goes.

The two aspects regarding elites and the average population respectively are mutually complementary but should be treated differently in regard to expectations. If the whole population is taught to understand the relative nature of everyone’s selfhood, neither totally denying the reasonable needs of each and every person nor ignoring the necessity of proper self-restraint in order to honor the interests of the whole people, an all-round balance of multiple social relationships can be promoted and achieved.

While it is definitely wrong to advocate maximization of self-interests, as touted by liberalist economists and politicians, this does not mean denial of basic human needs for survival and everybody’s reasonable interests. Even a spiritual practitioner of self-cultivation aiming at self-denial will have to find some food when hungry and somewhere to lie down when sleepy because end of life without food and rest would mean end of spiritual practice. Where would food and shelter come from? One has to do some seeking, either through begging or through one’s own labor, that is, one cannot totally give up “seeking”. One may not assert for anything else except for this much “seeking”, even to the extent of deliberately “seeking not to assert”. But any deliberate “seeking” is a kind of “asserting”. Obviously, it is impossible to totally give up “asserting”. What one can do is “asserting with self-restraint”. That means “not asserting for all else” while asserting for what cannot be done without. It means readiness for flexible adaptation, i.e., adaptation to ever-changing conditions. This adaptation involves the following two mutually complementary aspects:

1. Adaptation to the conditions in oneself. Take food when hungry and lie down when sleepy; Follow one’s own heart when somebody else needs help and bring into play however much compassion one harbors. Human beings, at least most of them, are born with the psychological endowment of compassion. They could hardly bear hunger themselves, nor would like to see others starving. All are not self-serving egoists, who serve others solely for the purpose of serving oneself. Meanwhile, there are neither many people who are 100% altruistic. The majority are both seeking to meet one’s own needs and at the same time willing to take others’ welfare into consideration. They are advocates of “shared interests”. “Shared interests” is nothing but balanced interests. This implies, while insisting on certain necessary self-interest, giving up some other self-interest merely to meet the needs of others or of the whole community.

2. Adaptation to the surrounding conditions, that is, not over-asserting oneself, whether it’s for one’s own or for the public’s benefits. But this does not mean to suppress all one’s own initiative and abstain from asserting in a minimum degree in the direction following the prompt of one’s own thoughts. To put it another way, neither giving up all assertiveness nor overly asserting oneself, all depending on mutual interactions and adaptations with reciprocal respect between self and others, between self and the community, between self and the environment, and between different considerations within one’s own mind. In a word, adaptation to conditions involves the two aspects of self-asserting and self-restraint. To achieve this through mutual interaction requires as a prerequisite recognition of and facing up to the existence of two or more mutually different and relatively autonomous selfhoods.

To sum up, it is necessary to both recognize the relative existence of all “selves”, including one’s “own” groups such as “my family”, “my ethnic group’’, “my village”, “my organization”,… “my province”, “my country”, “we humans”, who all have to seek and assert a bit for the satisfaction of some basic needs, and at the same time recognize the ultimate intangible nature of everything, i.e., nothing being real to hold on to, hence the necessity to let go sometimes. While everybody needs to stick to some basic interests, the average people, undeniably, also have a kind heart, that is, having empathy for one’s own fellow creatures and mercy for all living things. People should both stand for one’s “self” in a way and, when required by circumstances, restrain oneself and yield. Thus, unnecessary confrontations would be reduced and social balance enhanced.

If people fail to follow one’s own reasonable thought and assert for what is entitled to them, it would mean to follow others’ perhaps much inflated desire and fall victim to some kind of slavery, thus leading to social imbalances and sufferings for the majority from loss of freedom. If one refuses to yield what he/she should, the way of nature towards a balance through interactions would compel him/her to yield. Freedom means both reasonable assertiveness and conscious relinquishment while forced relinquishment would spell inescapable agony.

If a majority of a population learn to know how to assert with restraint while the elites mostly to practice ISEK, then a dynamic comprehensive balance of social relationships would be within reach. The transformation of people’s mind and that of social institutions are the two mutually complementary aspects indispensable for achieving social balance and harmony.

To transform people’s mind means to weaken and get rid of their excessive self-assertiveness by enlightening them on the intangibility of all things and on the interdependence between man and nature and between self and others. To get rid of their excessive self-assertiveness is not the same as to dismiss and deny the relatively autonomous position of each person, but such independence has to be, through constant interactions,  mutually complementary with other individual or group entities, all in a relatively autonomous position. When the ranks of such enlightened individuals and groups reach a considerable size, they would be able to help work out gradually a variety of social economic and political-legal institutions that can dynamically and effectively bring about societal balances. Everybody is born with the seed of a Buddhist nature in the depth of one’s heart. Evil institutions would smother such seeds and induce degradation while good ones nurtures such seeds and help them grow, blossom and bear fruits.

To transform the system means, besides making it fair, just and effective in guaranteeing universal satisfaction of reasonable material needs in such a proper degree as not to sabotage the harmony between man and nature, between different social groups and between people’s mind and body – besides this, ultimately speaking, it means to make the system favorable to the transformative cultivation of people’s mind, i.e., to the elevation of their spiritual character, not on the contrary adding fuel to the flames of people’s inflating selfish desires for limitless material consumption.

In a nutshell, to remold social ethos in order to remold societal system, and vice versa – both sides are indispensable to the transformation of a society towards a better prospect and neither should be neglected. They are mutually productive. While division of work is necessary, belief and advocacy should not be one-sided. The common goal is for the whole mankind to march towards a future seeing all-round harmony, ranging from mind-body balance through that in global human relationships on all levels to man-nature closeness, resulting in universal peace and happiness for all human beings.