EDITOR’S NOTE: This Part IV is supposed to complete the author’s serial response to Prof. Crane’s criticism of New Legalism, if there will be no major counter-arguments worth comment coming in. Prof. Crane did respond to Part II of the series by an article entitled On the costs of Legalism. But this article provides no real comment, though it is said to, not aiming at any major arguments made by his critic but rather repeating what is already effectively refuted in Part II and evading his critic’s challenges. We the New Legalists hope Prof. Crane and any other readers will seriously ponder over the major viewpoints in our articles and continue to put forward their views, either agreeing or disagreeing.  Let us together meet courageously the challenges facing us at this critical moment of human history.

A Brief history of the debate:
(Abbr.:
C1=Prof. Crane’ 1st article, etc.
L1=New Legalists’ 1st article, etc.
YZ=By Yuzhong Zhai, general editor of The New Legalist website (Chinese and English)
SL=By Sherwin Lu, editor of this English section of the website
to=in response to)

C1: The New Legalists: Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy for Nationalist Ends
C2: More on the New Legalists: The Philosophical Problems
C3: Once More Into the Breach: The New Legalists and the Tao Te Ching

C6: On the costs of Legalism (to L3)

L4: Who is “Distorting Chinese History and Chinese Philosophy”: The New Legalists or Prof. Sam Crane, Part III: TRADITIONAL CHINESE CULTURE: AN ORGANIC WHOLE  (SL, to C1-C4)

L5: The following (to C1-C5)

THE TEXT 

How European Upstarts Define the World

      In reply to Part I of this serial rebuttal, Prof. Crane finally reveals himself as Eurocentric. He says the nation “is, by definition, a modern phenomenon” without telling us by whose definition. But, the definition by the New Oxford American Dictionay (2nd Edn, Oxford University Press) says, “A nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.” And by this definition, China has been a nation for at least 2000 years. But Prof. Crane first refuses to acknowledge this historical fact and then turns a deaf ear to my questions: “If such a great community as China that shares the same language, same standards of measurement, same currency, same transit system, same legal codes and same culture of prosperity for hundreds or thousands of years – if such a community is not a nation, then what is a nation? Must it be relentless enough to try to bleed other nations white through expanding its world market by the use of gunboats or missiles and the imposing of attendant rationalizing ideology – must it be like this to be qualified as a nation? ”

      This is no surprise to the author because the second question actually defines the true nature of the Western nations born only recently. Prof. Crane says, “’Nations’ as such did not emerge until the processes of modernization arose…” What is “modernization”, then? As we know, there has been a major debate going on all the time about Western modernization theory and there seems to be no consensus yet. But what we can be certain is that, to borrow Prof. Crane’s sentence pattern, Western modernization did not emerge until there arose the domestic processes of peasants being driven out of their lands into cities to be slaves of capital and the overseas processes of expansion and colonization all over the world – all this justified by the European upstarts’ liberalist philosophy and political economy, and that the minority of profiteers – capitalists, colonialists, imperialists and those who wittingly or unwittingly served their interests -- on the one hand and the majority of losers and victims on the other definitely had contrary definitions of these processes.

      But is this process of Western-style modernization totally justifiable?

      Ask the peasants who were deprived of their lands in the Enclosure Movement, or, if not possible to find records of their complaints, just ask today’s Chinese peasants who have lost their lands to the capitalistic upstarts favored by Western-style liberalist policies!

      Ask the workers in 19th century European cities who were deprived of all resources for a livelihood, or, if not possible to find records of their complaints, just ask today’s Chinese workers in the sweat shops favored by Western-style liberalist policies!

      Ask the Africans who were traded and made to toil in American plantations as slaves, or their descendents!

      Ask the American Indians who were slaughtered and deprived of their ancestral homelands, or their descendents!

      Ask the peoples in former Western colonies all over the world, and/or their descendents who are still suffering from Western-style “modernization” today in Africa, Latin America and Asia!

      Ask the millions and millions of families or their descendents who lost their loved ones in the two world wars and so many other ever-existing regional wars, which have only served to divide and re-divide markets, resources and astronomical profits among a handful of Western monopoly capitalists!

      All their experiences point to the only fact-sustained definition that Western modernization based on liberalist ideology is in essence the modernization of ways for a privileged few, old and new, to control almost all the natural, technical, economical, political, military and ideological resources so as to fleece the majority to the utmost on a global scale. The powerful plutocrats and their “learned” agents who have gained from this process have defined the world in social Darwinist terms as one ruled by the jungle law. And their concept of “nation” was just part of this distorted definition. The capital-dominated nation they have created on liberalist economic and political principles is but a convenient tool for them to secure an all-round advantage over the majority both at home and abroad. By dividing up this majority, or their human resources for making profits, into “insiders” (nationals) and “outsiders” (foreigners), they can buy the insiders’ allegiance to their oligarchic rule and willing sacrifice, e.g., as gun fodders in wars, by carving a tiny portion out of what they have grabbed from the outsiders for the survival and/or “welfare” of insiders. Then they can have a free hand to further expand their colonial empire by conquering ever more “primitive” peoples with brutal military force or other seemingly not brutal “soft” ways, or to contest with other “modernized” nations for colonies, markets, natural resources, cheap labor, or ready wealth (that is how the two world wars and other major wars have happened).

      And this way of defining the world and the nation has been imposed on the world as the only one acceptable by those scholars who have taken a share in the spoils with the European plutocrats, although this definition, and their overall exclusive right of “free” speech, has been ultimately backed by brutal military force against people of all nations. Therefore, it is no surprise that they should deny other “primitive” nations like China the right to be a nation. It is this Eurocentric perspective and liberalist belief that have made Prof. Crane blind to the fact that he is not “generally anti-nationalist” at all, as he professes himself to be, but an apologist for the worst kind of nationalism – imperialism.

      Prof. Crane might want to say again that this author is “not interested in the complexities and varieties of history”. It is true that history is complex. But it is also true that the principle of justice is simple. Justice should mean the balance and integration of all basic interests of all peoples. For the top 1 or 2 or 3 percent superrich population to usurp 80 or 90 or 99 percent of the world’s wealth and enjoy the miseries of 80 or 90 or 99 percent of the world’s human beings, however many “varieties” of forms this polarization may take, can never be called justice even by traditional Western value standard, at least not by the standard in their written words, i.e., by their professed value belief, religious or non-religious.

      While posing as one who understands “the complexities and varieties of history”, Prof. Crane, however, would not stoop to acknowledge the “varieties” of nations and “varieties” of ways of learning and doing things which had been existing for long before modern Western adventurers began trying to destroy these “varieties” and sowing miseries and deaths all over the world; and he went on further to label this author’s argument pointing to such “complexities and varieties of history“ as “exceptionalism”, ”shallowest primordialism”, etc. That is to say, only he can defend himself in terms of “complexities and varieties of history” but it would be “exceptionalism” if others reveal in their arguments true “complexities and varieties of history”. What pretension and arrogance!

      Does that mean that only modern European or Western nations have all the rights a “nation” by their definition deserves, including the right to define and do anything however they like, for instance, to wage more Opium Wars or Viet Nam Wars or Iraq Wars in the name of “free trade” or “free” something else, while all those nations who refuse to follow their will should have to stop existing, or perish, as a nation, as China almost did once if not for the awakening of “nationalist” consciousness and the “nationalist” revolution that followed? Is this not like saying that only those adventurous profiteering upstarts have the right to consider themselves as “men” by their definition while an old-time hard-working well-to-do peasant is not a “man” if he does not follow the new upstarts’ will and deserves to be flogged, fleeced and butchered like cattle? I do not assume that Prof. Crane is so “brutal” at the bottom of his heart, but the Eurocentric and liberalist ideology he has adopted inevitably unfolds such a scenario that he might not have intended to see. 

What is behind the “Generally Anti-Nationalist” Rhetoric

      I believe Prof. Crane is humane and not consciously ethnocentric at heart – His adoption of Eurocentric ideology may not have been totally his conscientious choice, as he was born and educated in that social environment. I believe his friendship for the Chinese people and liking for the Chinese culture are sincere and, also, he means what he says: “I am most happy to accept a critique of US hegemony”. Meanwhile, he may have a reason to worry that China might also turn out to be another hegemonic power threatening the world, and this worry may actually be shared by quite some people of good will, including some who are friendly to and sincerely concerned about the fate of the Chinese people. But since this debate is so critical to the fate of the whole mankind, including Americans and Chinese, this author has to be straightforward and pursue to the end on issues of principle.

      Now, though Prof. Crane professes himself as “happy to accept a critique of US hegemony”, the way he argues against what potential threat he thinks there is in a “nationalist” China actually serves to, perhaps unwittingly, defend US hegemony.

      For one thing, he uses many ambiguous epithets and statements obscuring the demarcation between offence and defense such as:

“… the power interests of the Chinese state”

“All states everywhere rely upon coercion and organized violence.”

“All states everywhere justify the use of force in defensive or preventative terms.”

 “’Say No Nationalist’ rhetoric”

“Nationalists are ideologically committed, their minds are closed.”

While making these indiscriminating remarks, Prof. Crane at the same time chooses to ignore the glaring facts this author has pointed out in Part I of this serial rebuttal: 

 “… it was the U.S. that bombed the Chinese embassy, not vice versa; it was the U.S. warplanes that came from across half the globe near to Chinese coast for peeping purposes and hit a Chinese plane at China’s front door, not the vice versa; it is the U.S. warships that are cruising through and around the island chain off China’s coast, blocking her way out, not the vice versa. It is the U.S. that is encircling China from all directions with military bases and nuclear warheads, not the vice versa.”

This situation is like a sinister gang sending out its members armed with assault weapons to be stationed all over a residential community area and specifically encircling a certain family’s house -- at its front door, its side doors, its driveways, its stairways, outside all its windows and all round its back garden, sometimes peeking into the house with the help of advanced instruments and even killing a security guard or two for that purpose, thus incurring verbal protests or defensive or preventive actions (e.g. shooting a threateningly approaching gang member before the latter opens fire) from the inhabitants inside and their security guards at the doors …and then some one else trying to tell the latter not to “say No” to the gang, not to protest in their ?-ist (equivalent to “nationalist”) ”rhetoric” because “All… everywhere justify the use of force in defensive or preventative terms” and all should open their minds and should not be ideologically committed to the defense of their own security. Or just because all thieves may cry “Stop the thief!” to cover up his own criminal act, then nobody should use force to stop him from stealing! What super logic is this?!

       If it was the Chinese who had bombed the U.S. embassy or U.S. territory, not vice versa, or if it was the Chinese warplanes who had come from across half the globe near to the U.S. coasts for spying purposes and hit a US plane at the US front door, not the vice versa, or if it was China’s warships that were cruising along the U.S. coasts, blocking her way out, not the vice versa, or if It was China that had been encircling the U.S. from all directions with military bases and nuclear warheads, not the vice versa – then you should of course directly protest against China, accuse Chinese nationalists of its offensiveness, and actually need to prepare yourself for “the use of force” to defend yourself, but not to disarm yourself ideologically by making such ambiguous statements. But, fortunately for you, this is not the case; the undeniable fact is: the US has always been the offender while China the victim.

       In either case, a sweeping statement against “use of force” is irresponsible at least, if not deceptive, because it is not directed at the actual offensive user of force; and specific accusation of the victim is even more outrageous.  Prof. Crane might say that some of his sweeping statements are made when he is discussing ancient Chinese military actions, not about present world affairs. But the principle of justice should be applicable to the past and present at the same time, not to say some of the indiscriminate statements do refer specifically to today’s Chinese “nationalists”. If one is not fair in judging present affairs, can we expect him to be fair towards things in the past? Distorting history to suit one’s current interests – that is an old trick repeatedly used by all those who pursue only a “maximization of self-interest” (the Western liberalist motto). 

The Liberalist Super Logic

       More than that, the U.S. is not only openly using force or threat of force at China’s front door, it has also been, in collaboration with other Western powers,  trying to dismember China from within so as to press on with its hegemonic ambition. US financial and material support of secessionist forces within China is no longer a secret today. And, in spite of his professing to the contrary, Prof. Crane actually is defending US interference in China’s internal affairs. He may argue that he is defending the rights of Chinese minorities against wrongs. It is true that the Chinese government might need to improve their management of minority affairs, but not all problems are ethnic relations issues, as actually the major problems in today’s China are the consequences of blindly and widely copying Western liberalist economic policies. These policies are also incurring the same kind of complaints from the Han majority. And to describe all the problems as ethnic relations issues and to sow discord among the different Chinese ethnic groups only serves to divert attention from increasing criticisms of Western-style economic liberalism and thus serves the interests of those both inside and outside of China who have unjustly benefited too much from such policies.

      Even if some issues are ethnic relations related, still they are China’s internal affairs and can only be resolved by the joint efforts of the whole Chinese people and the government. No other nations have the right whatsoever to pit part of the Chinese population against another part, because every nation-state has its own problems to solve and the problems can only be solved by its own people. The US is no exception. Or, to return the label Prof. Crane has wrongly applied to our arguments and now apply rightly to his unjustifiable bias, no “exceptionalism” is allowed here, not even for a superpower! If US meddling into China’s internal affairs can be justified, then what if some other foreign forces should follow the US precedent and secretly stir up American Indians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Hawaiians, etc. against the wrongs done or being done to them and help form some kind of secessionist movements by providing them with money, arms, military training, counseling and diplomatic support? What would you say, then, Prof. Crane? Will you support or condemn the interfering forces?  Mind you much of the present-day US territory was incorporated into the new nation by force not really long ago, as compared with the much longer history of unity as one nation between Taiwan, Tibet, Xijiang and the inland of China. Therefore, in supporting US interference into China’s internal affairs, Prof. Crane is choosing to stand on the side of US hegemony and also to encourage the secessionist tendency already rampant all over the world today, which only serves to create even greater chaos and disasters, to which no nations can be immune -- the US is no exception.

      Even if defensive nationalism is not immune to the possibility of turning offensive in the future, as Prof. Crane warns, still, RIGHT NOW, China is defending its own security at home, not offending the U.S. or others in any way. How much sincerity is there in one’s professedly opposing hegemony and opposing nationalism in general, if one does not condemn the currently acting worst form of nationalism -- hegemonic imperialism -- but denounces a future possibility? To deprive the victimized party of its right to self-defense in order to prevent it from turning into an offender – what super logic is it, again??? Is it not quite obvious that Prof. Crane’s warning against the negative side of nationalism and his “generally anti-nationalist” rhetoric is but a camouflage?

      This author would not venture to make a guess at Prof. Crane’s personal motive behind the apparent inconsistency in his arguments, but can point out its ideological origin. Besides the Eurocentric perspective he has adopted, his belief in liberalism may be the even deeper philosophical root. As a matter of fact, liberalism is the ideological foundation for all modern Western nations, for their colonialist, imperialist, militarist acts and their Eurocentric perspective in viewing the world, as has been discussed above. (A criticism of Western liberalism from traditional Chinese philosophical point of view can be found in Part III of this serial rebuttal. 

The Real Restraining Force on Negative Nationalism

       Prof. Crane expresses his worry about the possibility for China to follow the US precedent in pursuing world hegemony and, as a prescription for its prevention, he quotes from somebody else: “One powerful restraining force on the negative side of nationalism is liberalism…” But this is no prescription at all; it is only adding fuel to the flames. Actually, any ideology intended for maintaining unbalanced social relationships in any form, be it liberalism for the domination of capital, or statism for that of unchecked state power, or militarism for that of the military, or racism for that of a certain racial group, would inevitably try to distort nationalism by pushing it to the extreme and then exploit its negative side to serve its purpose. Prof. Crane cited Germany and Japan as typical examples showing how defensive nationalism developed into offensive fascism and militarism, but he fails to dig at the root in the social relationship pattern and the matching social ideology. This author can cite two more examples. One is the U.S., a new nation that was born of a liberalist revolution against British monopoly interests but whose liberalist ideology has nurtured a handful of home-made monopoly capitalists, who in turn have pushed the U.S. onto the path of hegemonism – one of the worst kinds of nationalism. The other example was the former Soviet Union, whose nationalism allied with state-socialist ideology finally developed into social-imperialism – another of the worst kinds of nationalism.

       As New Legalists, we are opposed to any kind of offensive nationalism in the name of whatever nation and are well aware of that threat. Actually this is just one of the concerns which have motivated us to look for the ultimate value system for guiding all human affairs and we found it, not in Western liberalism but, in the traditional Chinese philosophical teachings best represented by Daoism, largely (though not perfectly) practiced on the macro social and also individual levels by the Legalists, and partially practiced on the individual level by some Confucianists and also Mohists etc.

      The traditional Chinese Daoist-Legalist “structure of system” with a Confucianist façade is not an “anarchic” one as Prof. Crane alleges, because it was more or less based on a multi-level dynamic balance between humanity and nature, between all different social interests (including those of neighboring ethnic tribes), and between personal moral cultivation and social relational regulation and continual adjustments. The typical “anarchic”” structure of system” cannot be found in ancient China, but in the West, both past and present, as Western rulers have always relied on outward expansion for more periphery territories or other forms of spheres of influence for the survival and internal stability of its core areas and prosperity of its core members (see Part II of this serial). No other real authority can check their expanding activities, except for their own selfish interests. Is this not typical “anarchism”?

       Much has been said about how the above Chinese schools of thought have made China’s over 2000 years or even longer history possible, often co-operatively or complementarily, though sometimes contradictorily. Is this history not long enough to prove the vitality and validity of traditional Chinese thought?  Who can cite another system of thought which has sustained a civilization with an even longer history? China IS “exceptional” in this sense -- nobody can shun this fact, happy or unhappy.

      As is well-known to all sinologists, the Mongolian and Manchurian conquerors of inland China, who were founders of two major Chinese dynasties (Yuan, 1271-1368; and Qing, 1616/1644-1911), were finally “conquered” ideologically by the original Han Chinese culture, not to mention many other invading minority regimes on the borders being assimilated into Han culture: these originally conflicting ethnic groups were finally mutually integrated into one great nation – the Chinese nation, thus enhancing the material and spiritual welfare of all peoples with different ethnic backgrounds. Is this fact not sufficient enough evidence showing that the spiritual and intellectual side of traditional Chinese culture is by itself vital and vigorous enough to “conquer” people’s hearts and minds without resorting to the use of material force?

       One may wonder how comes that physical conquerors were culturally conquered by the physically conquered? The answer is: It was just the functioning of the Heavenly Dao; it was because the physically conquered people had been largely following the Dao in running social affairs and won the hearts of the people, thus setting a good example for other ethnic peoples, physical conquerors included, to follow. That is why this author says in Part I of this serial “on the whole, Chinese military actions on the borders were defensive or preventive. And those peoples’ joining the Chinese nation usually led to protection and support from the central government and an assimilation of the more advanced culture into and a betterment of their life, not like modern colonization or other forms of control by Western countries, which led to even wider gaps between them and the controlled countries.” But this statement is distorted by Prof. Crane when he imposes on this author “the following assertion that the effects of the use of force brought ‘advanced culture’ and better material conditions to those upon whom it was inflicted” and then goes on to condemn it as “standard imperialist rhetoric.” This is a total distortion, because from my original statement as copied above and as supported by the above-cited historical facts of “physical conquerors being culturally conquered” should be deduced the following conclusion that the effects of the use of force [by invaders and conquerors of inland China] brought ‘advanced culture’ and better material conditions to those [who used such force]. To tell the truth, Prof. Crane’s misreading of Chinese history is but a projection of Western imperialist history on China, as Western rulers have always tried to impose their false value beliefs on its own people and on other nations by the use of force so as to better their own material conditions at the expense of all their victims at home and abroad. They can never imagine and understand Chinese ideas of “moral justice” (daoyi, 道义) “humility” (shouci, 守雌), “low-lying” （juxia, 居下）, etc. They think that all human beings are like them – no exception!

       By making that “on the whole” statement, this author is, of course, not saying that there were no exceptions, that each and every military action taken by past Chinese rulers and generals and troops was defensive or preventive, that there was not a single instance of unjust (that is, going against the Dao) atrocities committed by any of them. That is why this author says “on the whole”, instead of “all” – a word Prof. Crane likes to use, because he hates “exceptionalism”, though history is full of “complexities” and there are always “exceptions”.

      So, finally, to push the world towards universal peace and justice, let me propose again that Prof. Crane, we as New legalists, and all others who may have different philosophical beliefs but share the same good will – let us all join forces to exploit whatever is worthy in all different cultures for the common good of humanity. This is what our self-defense is all about.