I don't think that western childlike delusions can refrain much the rise of a totalitarian regime the likes of China's. After all, here in the west we saw the rise of a totalitarian society right in the heart of christendom during the last century.
Does having a pragmatic approach, devoid of idealistic delusions, really make a difference?
Nazi totalitarianism was largely a Romantic endeavor. A closer comparison would be with Soviet totalitarianism which was more rationalistic. Marx supposedly set out a sociological science of predicting the future states of societies. But Russian totalitarianism wasn't purely pragmatic or soulless, largely because Russian culture is infused with Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Pure pragmatism is just directionless instrumental rationality. You look for techniques to solve particular problems, but you avoid thinking of the underlying, philosophical questions about what it's all for. China seems to me much more pragmatic in that sense than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. The Nazis and Soviets were utopian idealists, not pragmatic, nihilistic realists.
"The Nazis and Soviets were utopian idealists, not pragmatic, nihilistic realists"
I agree. But what difference does it make in practice? Do you think the threat of a pragmatic totalitarian regime is greater than a romantic and idealistic one? Is China's regime more dangerous than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? Because the practical results of the two types of regimes somehow seem the same to me.
If anything, the idealistic totalitarian regimes are more destructive because they're expansionist and fired up. As Mahbubani says at the start of the dialogue linked below (4:50), China was technically dominant for centuries but didn't try to conquer the world. Largely, that must have been because China wasn't motivated by a creative utopian ideal.
Then again, idealistic regimes might be like the flame that burns brightly but fades out that much quicker. China might be able to last longer because it's just going through the motions, unburdened by deep questions of value.
Very good article. I think you captured the problem with China pretty well. For all their competence & efficiency, they ultimately lack any creative ideal to apply it to. The CCP has been so preoccupied with lifting the masses out of poverty that they haven't reflected on what for & why these people should live once their basic, animal needs have been taken care of. The fact that so many Chinese are converting to Christianity seems to indicate that the need for a transcendent context is felt & while some Chinese may only see church as a venue for networking, there are many underground 'home churches' that operate illegally just under the government's surveillance net.
While Christianity has certainly acted as an ideal for western progress, I'm not so sure China's own lack of direction in that regard is a sole result of their own this-worldly faith. Japan, like China, had its own indigenous animism which was partially syncretized with Buddhism imported from China & yet the two peoples could not be more different. In my experience, the Japanese have 'soul' -- not in the metaphysical sense, but in the sense that the word is used among African-Americans in our own country. Even though their nation is every bit as secular as China, there is a gentleness & a pathos among the Japanese that every Chinese person I have ever known seems to lack utterly. The Buddhist idea of the transience of all things -- mono no aware -- is something the Japanese took to heart & you see it in almost every artistic expression of theirs .There is this sense that the fragility of human life obliges us to be kind to one another & to face our own death courageously if it means saving others. You might even consider the Buddhist humanism of the Japanese to be an alternative to the dilemma you posed at the end of your article.
In any case, with the decline of the American empire, China is surely poised to set the ethos of the 21st century which I suspect will be a century of global decline as fossil fuels are exhausted, people starve, & technology regresses. I wonder if the CCP has factored that into its pragmatic assessments?
Sybok, you raise an interesting question about Japan which may call for a follow-up article. Mind you, that would require research on my part, and I prefer to rant. ;) I suspect the answer may lie with Shinto and Buddhism, and with the smaller size of Japan compared to China. (Compare Canadian kindness, lying at the border of the American behemoth.) Plus, there's the atomic bomb which humbled Japan. Japanese people were once more aggressive and imperialistic, I think. But again, I'd have to look into that to confirm my suspicions.
I don't think that western childlike delusions can refrain much the rise of a totalitarian regime the likes of China's. After all, here in the west we saw the rise of a totalitarian society right in the heart of christendom during the last century.
ReplyDeleteDoes having a pragmatic approach, devoid of idealistic delusions, really make a difference?
Nazi totalitarianism was largely a Romantic endeavor. A closer comparison would be with Soviet totalitarianism which was more rationalistic. Marx supposedly set out a sociological science of predicting the future states of societies. But Russian totalitarianism wasn't purely pragmatic or soulless, largely because Russian culture is infused with Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
DeletePure pragmatism is just directionless instrumental rationality. You look for techniques to solve particular problems, but you avoid thinking of the underlying, philosophical questions about what it's all for. China seems to me much more pragmatic in that sense than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. The Nazis and Soviets were utopian idealists, not pragmatic, nihilistic realists.
"The Nazis and Soviets were utopian idealists, not pragmatic, nihilistic realists"
DeleteI agree. But what difference does it make in practice? Do you think the threat of a pragmatic totalitarian regime is greater than a romantic and idealistic one? Is China's regime more dangerous than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? Because the practical results of the two types of regimes somehow seem the same to me.
If anything, the idealistic totalitarian regimes are more destructive because they're expansionist and fired up. As Mahbubani says at the start of the dialogue linked below (4:50), China was technically dominant for centuries but didn't try to conquer the world. Largely, that must have been because China wasn't motivated by a creative utopian ideal.
DeleteThen again, idealistic regimes might be like the flame that burns brightly but fades out that much quicker. China might be able to last longer because it's just going through the motions, unburdened by deep questions of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnkC7GXmLdo&t=1013s&ab_channel=CentreforIndependentStudies
Very good article. I think you captured the problem with China pretty well. For all their competence & efficiency, they ultimately lack any creative ideal to apply it to. The CCP has been so preoccupied with lifting the masses out of poverty that they haven't reflected on what for & why these people should live once their basic, animal needs have been taken care of. The fact that so many Chinese are converting to Christianity seems to indicate that the need for a transcendent context is felt & while some Chinese may only see church as a venue for networking, there are many underground 'home churches' that operate illegally just under the government's surveillance net.
ReplyDeleteWhile Christianity has certainly acted as an ideal for western progress, I'm not so sure China's own lack of direction in that regard is a sole result of their own this-worldly faith. Japan, like China, had its own indigenous animism which was partially syncretized with Buddhism imported from China & yet the two peoples could not be more different. In my experience, the Japanese have 'soul' -- not in the metaphysical sense, but in the sense that the word is used among African-Americans in our own country. Even though their nation is every bit as secular as China, there is a gentleness & a pathos among the Japanese that every Chinese person I have ever known seems to lack utterly. The Buddhist idea of the transience of all things -- mono no aware -- is something the Japanese took to heart & you see it in almost every artistic expression of theirs .There is this sense that the fragility of human life obliges us to be kind to one another & to face our own death courageously if it means saving others. You might even consider the Buddhist humanism of the Japanese to be an alternative to the dilemma you posed at the end of your article.
In any case, with the decline of the American empire, China is surely poised to set the ethos of the 21st century which I suspect will be a century of global decline as fossil fuels are exhausted, people starve, & technology regresses. I wonder if the CCP has factored that into its pragmatic assessments?
Sybok, you raise an interesting question about Japan which may call for a follow-up article. Mind you, that would require research on my part, and I prefer to rant. ;) I suspect the answer may lie with Shinto and Buddhism, and with the smaller size of Japan compared to China. (Compare Canadian kindness, lying at the border of the American behemoth.) Plus, there's the atomic bomb which humbled Japan. Japanese people were once more aggressive and imperialistic, I think. But again, I'd have to look into that to confirm my suspicions.
Delete