EDITOR’S NOTE: Our position has attracted increasing attention and is winning increasing understanding and support. Though some people, having been subjected to certain specific social influences, are still suspicious of Chinese legalism, old and new, or have misunderstandings about us, we think this is only natural as another instance of Yin-Yang dichotomy. We are confident that, as time goes on, more and more people will learn from mankind’s new practices as well as from past history how to tell truth from falsity and to recognize true wisdom that will benefit the whole human community. The hope for human salvation lies in the prospect when a considerable number of people have come to recognize the Dao, or the true Way of all things. It is just for a sooner arrival of this day that we New Legalists are working hard. With a view to this purpose, we welcome all friendly criticisms and sincere exchanges of ideas.
A brief history of the debate:
Lang Yan:
THE TEXT
I. Dividing or No Dividing
Mr. Lang Yan’s response to our counter-argument is entitled “One divides into two, or two fuse into one”. Either/or again! The whole text answers to the effect that it should be “one divides into two”, not “two fuse into one”. But he also says: “The task of the proletariat is its auto-destruction as a class, to cease to exist by creating a new world. This means the end of all classes, not a balancing of class interests.”
Then we would like to ask: When that is achieved, will the “one divides into two” principle still work? If yes, then the “new world” divides into two WHAT? Mr. Lang Yan might say “into groups with other names than “class”. But will these “groups” remain “divided”? Then how can you be sure that the divided groups will not develop into classes again if without a dynamic balance of interests? Or how can you compromise the principle of “one divides into two” and the prospect of no more division into classes? This self-contradiction resembles the situation in that famous Chinese fable, where a man is peddling the spear (矛) and the shield (盾) at the same time, boasting that his spear can pierce any shield while his shield can resist any spear.
Anyway, according to Mr. Lang Yan, these “groups” under whatever category name would certainly “not fuse into one”! But actually there is no need at all for any “fusing into one”, anywhere and any when, because the two sides of any relationship, antagonistic or not, always exist as oneinterdependentorganic whole, only to be continuously balanced both internally and externally one way or another, unless one of the two sides, or the two sides together as a whole, refuses to be balanced and is extinguished to meet the requirement for balanceon a higher level or dimension. If the requirement for balance is being suppressed at a certain level for long so that the imbalance is expanded to an extreme or upwards to finally reach the man-vs.-Nature dimension without stopping, then Nature will mercilessly extinguish man! So, better start from a dynamic balance at the very bottom and up. Hence our belief in the dynamically-balanced multi-dimensional whole, instead of either “dividing” or “fusing”.
In a word, “dividing” without a dynamic balance means life and death confrontation, which in turn means one extinguishing the other. Either the principle of “one divides into two” holds but then there will be no “end of all classes” or of other catastrophic divisions and confrontations; or this prospect shall be realized but that would mean “one divides into two” does not hold as the all-embracing philosophical generalization of the way of the world. One or the other. An either/or dilemma. The only way out is to acknowledge and respect the “dynamically-balanced multi-dimensional whole” and do accordingly. Note the word ‘dynamically’, which may mean at the same time either/both “compromise” through dynamic interactions between classes or groups under whatever names or/and one extinguishing the other by whatever means if the Dao, or Nature’s way for achieving balance, so requires.
II. Divided by Class or by Nation
Mr. Lang Yan accuses us New Legalists of “nationalization of capitalist antagonism”, by which is meant “when talking about national differences the New Legalists stress dichotomy, and when talking about class differences they stress harmony”, or in other words, we, by playing down class struggle, are pursuing “nationalistic” ends, the label “nationalistic” representing a very bad name in mainstream Western diction. But we would like to ask: Is the conflict between the Western capitalist nations and the victim nations under the exploitation and control of their “monopoly finance capital” not also a class conflict in nature? The fact of the matter is: the Western governments have been using their “national” armies to conquer, control or threat other “nations” who would not stoop to the will of their “monopoly finance capital” and all this under the banner of imperialistic “patriotism” – the worst form of “nationalism”, while at the same time they have been accusing those unyielding victims and critics like us as “nationalists”. Is this not “nationalization of capitalist antagonism”? Who is actually “nationalizing” “capitalist antagonism”, then? Is it not the Western “monopoly finance capital” and their apologists but people like us who have been tirelessly exposing the class nature of their global “exploitation and brutality” as evidenced by our website postings?
III. Resolve by Struggle or Compromise
Whentranslated into political discourse, Mr. Lang Yan’s philosophical stance for “one divides into two” against “two fuse into one” becomes undiscriminating opposition to “balance of interests” between capital and labor in any circumstances. But, since he acknowledges that “The problem with the world today is not capitalism per se, but the globalization of monopoly finance capital”, then we would like to ask: Is a certain degree of conditional compromise not necessary and also possible between, for instance, labor and capital in locally owned private small business enterprises in the developing nations (based on the principle of mutual compromise through dynamic interactions between them, not “that of capital” alone) just to isolate in the greatest degree their common enemy -- those international monopoly capitalists and the local comprador class serving their interests in these victim countries – is this not necessary and possible at all? If not, does it imply that Mao’s theory on grasping the principal contradiction and establishing a broad united front against the principal enemy is now out of date? And which approach, the one as advocated by Mao or the rejection of it, will result in “the elongation of class struggle, exploitation, and their [monopoly capitalists’] brutality”?
IV. History as Progress or Not
Mr. Lang Yan alleges that our goal is “to escape history” because we do not share Westerners’ linear way of thinking in terms of progress with a vector. Now about this, we would like to ask: What does “progress” mean here: In terms of ancient Romans’ “progressive” military advance from around the Mediterranean Sea to a wide area of the Eurasian landmass? Or modern European colonialists’ “progressive” military and economic expansion throughout the world? Or the present day super power’s “progressive” achievement of global hegemony? Or in terms of the “progressively” improved ways to kill people in large numbers like what happened in the above-mentioned “history” just to “progressively” fatten the purse of a handful of never-get-satisfied parasites? Or man’s “progressive” destruction of Nature? What kind of “progresses” are these after all? This kind of “history” you do not want to “escape”? But all victims of such “progresses” want to! All verbalism about “class struggle” without recognizing this is but empty talk, to say the least!
Yes, in the past “history” of “progress” there IS a “vector”. But in what direction does it point to? Not any other but that of total human self-destruction if we still do not stop to think and come to realize the importance of achieving harmony, real harmony of course, that is, harmony based on multi-dimensional dynamic balance between man and Nature, between nations and classes, between all social forces, etc., not just rhetoric or, even worse, just empty talk used as camouflage. But should we reject real harmony just because there is a false one? And ultimately speaking, there should be no “vector” that we humans can discern at all in the grand harmony of all-embracing existence because we are only a tiny part of this infinite unknown whole. Or, this all-embracing harmony should be the direction for the “vector” if there must be any to be designated at all. In the final analysis, the key is still “multi-dimensional dynamic balance”, not just “one divides into two”, or “two fuse into one”.
V. The Way Out of the Dilemma
Either “dividing” or “fusing”; either in terms of class or in terms of nation for viewing conflicts; either struggle or compromise for resolving them; either seeing history as “progress” or “escaping history” if not; etc., etc. -- in a word, EITHER black OR white; No gray area. Is this not “dualist thinking”? Not “a dilemma involving two extremes”? By talking philosophically about an either/or choice between two extremes, mainstream Western thinkers, whether capitalistic or else, betray the same mechanical nature of their view of polarities, lacking a sense of interdependence, interpenetration and the nature-determined tendency (that is, in spite of man’s will) towards a comprehensive dynamic balance between opposites on all dimensions of existence, i.e., between mind and matter, and between the two sides in all social or non-social relations, micro and macro. Whereas in Chinese thought, the two sides of a social relationship and of anything, just like that between the Yin (阴，shaded) and Yang (阳, sunny) sides of any object under the sun, depend, philosophically, on each other for its whole existence.
We New Legalists share with Mr. Lang Yan the same ideal of extinguishing “monopoly finance capital” and “creating a new world” void of “class struggle, exploitation, and their brutality”, but we do not share the same approach (i.e., how to get there). Hence this debate. Without the existence of New Legalism or what Mr. Lang Yan believes to be the right thought, there would be no such debate. In this sense, though divided so far into two schools of thought, we depend on each other for developing a wholesome strategy for the realization of our shared goal and for a friendly or even comradely cooperation. And our debate is just one way to achieve the dynamic balance we pursue, just to avoid a prospect of becoming eternally divided or even a life and death struggle as between “class enemies” (in quotation because this label as was used for ideological differences by those “one divides into two” advocates is still so fresh on our mind). |
