Your article was fascinating and throws a whole new light on China.
Naked Capitalism is an influential blog that began with a focus on finance but now covers a wide variety of topics as seen in the posting of your substack.
Also today was posted "The Asian world order
Before modern Europe existed there was a grand, interconnected political world, rich in scientific and artistic exchange"
In case you don't get around to looking there here is the link
I am a huge fan of the late French polymath Bruno Latour. I did a quick search of both of your names and nothing came up so my hunch is that you have not followed his work. Here are a couple of links that may be of interest.
"The Search for Political Heteronomy: New Ledgers of Complaints
"The “great national debate” offers an opportunity too good to miss. It should
be seized upon and used to extricate public consultations from the rut in which
they usually take place..."
"...of the same name that preceded, in 1789,
the meeting of the Estates General. But we also realize how far they are from the
new ledgers of complains that we should be learning to write by making the most of
such a poorly organized debate.
This would first of all require us to resolve the
crisis of extreme depoliticization we are in.
This depoliticization can be summed up in a cruel phrase: mute people trying
to speak to deaf ones. While “the people” seem unable to articulate political
positions that can be understood by the government; “the government” also
seems incapable of listening to anyone’s claims. Blocked at both transmission and
reception ends, a feeling of despair settles in. It is as if the breath that energizes
the political spirit of an entire nation has completely vanished. It is quite possible
that in France we have never before seen a situation of such profound silence in
the midst of such a flood of words. We see crowds trying to talk to each other, we
see the State trying to fit them into a traditional mold, but, for the momentum any
case, we have the impression of a film with the sound-track turned off...."
Another article on covid
"Is This a Dress Rehearsal?
Bruno Latour"
"The unforeseen coincidence between a general confinement and the period of Lent is still quite welcome for those who have been asked, out of solidarity, to do nothing and to remain at a distance from the battle front.1 This obligatory fast, this secular and republican Ramadan can be a good opportunity for them to reflect on what is important and what is derisory. It is as though the intervention of the virus could serve as a dress rehearsal for the next crisis, the one in which the reorientation of living conditions is going to be posed as a challenge to all of us, as will all the details of daily existence that we will have to learn to sort out carefully. I am advancing the hypothesis, as have many others, that the health crisis prepares, induces, and incites us to prepare for climate change. This hypothesis still needs to be tested.
What allows the two crises to occur in succession is the sudden and painful realization that the classical definition of society—humans among themselves—makes no sense. The state of society depends at every moment on the associations among many actors, most of whom do not have human forms. This is true of microbes—as we have known since Pasteur—but also of the internet, the law, the organization of hospitals, the logistics of the state, as well as the climate. And of course, in spite of the noise surrounding a “state of war” against the virus, it is only one link in a chain where the management of stocks of masks or tests, the regulation of property rights, civic habits, gestures of solidarity count exactly as much in defining the degree of virulence of the infectious agent. Once the entire network of which it is only one link is taken into account, the same virus does not act in the same way in Taiwan, Singapore, New York, or Paris. The pandemic is no more a “natural” phenomenon than the famines of the past or the current climate crisis. Society has long since moved beyond the narrow confines of the social sphere."
Stimulating read, thanks! Without going into the costs of Mao's various revolutions, which did indeed raise a half-billion people from poverty, at the cost of millions of other lives--I agree that his achievements were staggering--I want to put Lennon's casual crack against Mao in context. At the time Lennon wrote,1970, the West had cults of Mao wishing they too could turn things upside-down, though their numbers were small and their Little Red Books ever waving were no one else's authority. Our imitative Maoists were at best an embarrassment to Revolution. That was who Lennon was referring to, not Mao.
Ramin! So glad to see you on substack! Really valued your work at the Saker and your excellent books. Look forward to your insights on a fast-evolving world!
"Favorable to cross great rivers" is the line of maximum encouragement for great undertakings in the I Ching, the world's oldest book, a cornerstone of Confucianism and something Mao would have been conversant in. He swam the Yangzi to act out this line from China's holy book in order to spur people to participate in the Cultural Revolution.
The question I have: the presence and influence of Confucianism among the peasantry and common people was certainly low. Economic prosperity was so unevenly distributed that I believe most Chinese peasants in that era were more concerned about having enough food as opposed to learning and upholding ancient Chinese bureaucrat theology.
Equally, the previous bourgeoisie in China were significantly against Communism. As such, it is not very clear to me that a Chinese equivalent of a virtue signal based on Confucianism would necessarily have galvanized the majority of the Chinese population.
This is not to say your conjecture is untrue in some other sense.
The minority of bourgeoisie who joined the revolution were certainly educated in the classics as was Mao. Mao's virtue signaling could very well have been to galvanize those people as opposed to Chinese overall.
Let's not forget that a major objective of the Cultural Revolution was precisely to excise the influence said entrenched bourgeoisie inevitably exercised over China, regardless of the Communist revolution - which is consistent with the idea of a minority bourgeois revolutionary grouping galvanizing the nation and people against the obstructive institutions and customs of before.
Either way, thank you for a very thought provoking article.
You make very good points, but everyone agrees that Mao's swim had "great symbolism"... but nobody every explains what that symbolism actually is.
Chinese people responding to this article have either agreed with me wholeheartedly or been skeptical. So... it's an interesting exposition, at least, as you were kind enough to say. Many thanks
I think you are correct about the symbolism and intention of Mao and have always considered the Cultural Revolution was a very good thing for China.
I also think you are too hasty in your judgement of John Lennon.
As for, " I guess yang, masculine, creative, dynamic, propagating Confucianism doesn’t go well with acid trips, or high-intensity pharmaceutical drugs?" I've never had a problem combining Confusionism - which also involves Yin - with the substances you refer to.
I think it must be an age thing. Perhaps you got carried away with your justification of Mao versus the ideological shite that's usually ladeled on by Western sources?
On re-reading this for this posting I was a bit surprised at how extensively it criticised Lennon, LOL. Of course - being an english-speaking human - I love the Beatles. Lennon is fantastic, full stop.
But politically? His point of view is not my cup of tea, and my discussion of him there is on a purely political and social level - not musical, or artistic, or even philosophical. But mixing politics and music is not just hard but probably impossible - as Dylan said, you can't change the world with a song, and he got as close as anyone.
Socially - I think it's fine to critique his political content. Idealism (Imagine), sure, but we also need to end absolute poverty ASAP. The social critique was mostly that citizens were foolish to take political lead from Lennonism instead of Maoism - musical, artistic lead, of course, as Mao was a poet but no amazing songwriter.
I don't blame Lennon for not being a Maoist in the 60s, but I think that was definitely the wrong political choice. Not a big deal - to me, at least, because political ideas and music just don't mix much for me. When the two intersect - like how Black music in 1955 helped start the desegregation movement - it's seemingly by accident and not design.
.. but is there a political theory called Lennonism?
His most political song that could be considered political and not counter-narrative was 'Working Class Hero' and his most strident statement about those that rule us was that they were insane.
Lennonism? No, but that was just a term to sum up his political aspects... which are few, and which are extremely difficult to represent in song. And that's my point - looking for political leadership from troubadours isn't the best way to achieve political goals. It is a good way to have a good time.
Saying that all who rule us are insane is rather political nihilism. But the guy wasn't about to get into weeds on public policy and implementation - he was an artist, and one only quite tangentially interested in politics, and certainly not in revolutionary politics.
... but nobody looked to him for political leadership.
It feels like we are in 'strawman' territory here. As I mentioned earlier, I am pursuaded by the 'crossing the great water' hypothesis, but fabricating a political agenda around Lennon or even pop music in general is just weird.
As you say "... he was an artist, and one only quite tangentially interested in politics, and certainly not in revolutionary politics."
Your substack was posted today on NakedCapitalism.com
Your article was fascinating and throws a whole new light on China.
Naked Capitalism is an influential blog that began with a focus on finance but now covers a wide variety of topics as seen in the posting of your substack.
Also today was posted "The Asian world order
Before modern Europe existed there was a grand, interconnected political world, rich in scientific and artistic exchange"
In case you don't get around to looking there here is the link
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/01/links-1-10-2024.html
I am a huge fan of the late French polymath Bruno Latour. I did a quick search of both of your names and nothing came up so my hunch is that you have not followed his work. Here are a couple of links that may be of interest.
"The Search for Political Heteronomy: New Ledgers of Complaints
Bruno Latour A piece in Esprit March 2019"
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/downloads/163-ESPRIT-HETERENOMY-GB_0.pdf
"The “great national debate” offers an opportunity too good to miss. It should
be seized upon and used to extricate public consultations from the rut in which
they usually take place..."
"...of the same name that preceded, in 1789,
the meeting of the Estates General. But we also realize how far they are from the
new ledgers of complains that we should be learning to write by making the most of
such a poorly organized debate.
This would first of all require us to resolve the
crisis of extreme depoliticization we are in.
This depoliticization can be summed up in a cruel phrase: mute people trying
to speak to deaf ones. While “the people” seem unable to articulate political
positions that can be understood by the government; “the government” also
seems incapable of listening to anyone’s claims. Blocked at both transmission and
reception ends, a feeling of despair settles in. It is as if the breath that energizes
the political spirit of an entire nation has completely vanished. It is quite possible
that in France we have never before seen a situation of such profound silence in
the midst of such a flood of words. We see crowds trying to talk to each other, we
see the State trying to fit them into a traditional mold, but, for the momentum any
case, we have the impression of a film with the sound-track turned off...."
Another article on covid
"Is This a Dress Rehearsal?
Bruno Latour"
"The unforeseen coincidence between a general confinement and the period of Lent is still quite welcome for those who have been asked, out of solidarity, to do nothing and to remain at a distance from the battle front.1 This obligatory fast, this secular and republican Ramadan can be a good opportunity for them to reflect on what is important and what is derisory. It is as though the intervention of the virus could serve as a dress rehearsal for the next crisis, the one in which the reorientation of living conditions is going to be posed as a challenge to all of us, as will all the details of daily existence that we will have to learn to sort out carefully. I am advancing the hypothesis, as have many others, that the health crisis prepares, induces, and incites us to prepare for climate change. This hypothesis still needs to be tested.
What allows the two crises to occur in succession is the sudden and painful realization that the classical definition of society—humans among themselves—makes no sense. The state of society depends at every moment on the associations among many actors, most of whom do not have human forms. This is true of microbes—as we have known since Pasteur—but also of the internet, the law, the organization of hospitals, the logistics of the state, as well as the climate. And of course, in spite of the noise surrounding a “state of war” against the virus, it is only one link in a chain where the management of stocks of masks or tests, the regulation of property rights, civic habits, gestures of solidarity count exactly as much in defining the degree of virulence of the infectious agent. Once the entire network of which it is only one link is taken into account, the same virus does not act in the same way in Taiwan, Singapore, New York, or Paris. The pandemic is no more a “natural” phenomenon than the famines of the past or the current climate crisis. Society has long since moved beyond the narrow confines of the social sphere."
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/711428
Thanks so much for your comment and posting the Naked Capitalism link, Don. Much appreciated.
I haven't followed Latour much but will check him out, merci.
Stimulating read, thanks! Without going into the costs of Mao's various revolutions, which did indeed raise a half-billion people from poverty, at the cost of millions of other lives--I agree that his achievements were staggering--I want to put Lennon's casual crack against Mao in context. At the time Lennon wrote,1970, the West had cults of Mao wishing they too could turn things upside-down, though their numbers were small and their Little Red Books ever waving were no one else's authority. Our imitative Maoists were at best an embarrassment to Revolution. That was who Lennon was referring to, not Mao.
Thanks for the Lennon context longwind. It's hard to be great at politics AND songwriting!
Ramin! So glad to see you on substack! Really valued your work at the Saker and your excellent books. Look forward to your insights on a fast-evolving world!
Thank you Stanley, good to be back!
Is there a tl;dr of this? I appreciate the detail, but I don't feel like spending 15 minutes to get to the point.
"Favorable to cross great rivers" is the line of maximum encouragement for great undertakings in the I Ching, the world's oldest book, a cornerstone of Confucianism and something Mao would have been conversant in. He swam the Yangzi to act out this line from China's holy book in order to spur people to participate in the Cultural Revolution.
Gotcha. Thank you
An interesting exposition.
The question I have: the presence and influence of Confucianism among the peasantry and common people was certainly low. Economic prosperity was so unevenly distributed that I believe most Chinese peasants in that era were more concerned about having enough food as opposed to learning and upholding ancient Chinese bureaucrat theology.
Equally, the previous bourgeoisie in China were significantly against Communism. As such, it is not very clear to me that a Chinese equivalent of a virtue signal based on Confucianism would necessarily have galvanized the majority of the Chinese population.
This is not to say your conjecture is untrue in some other sense.
The minority of bourgeoisie who joined the revolution were certainly educated in the classics as was Mao. Mao's virtue signaling could very well have been to galvanize those people as opposed to Chinese overall.
Let's not forget that a major objective of the Cultural Revolution was precisely to excise the influence said entrenched bourgeoisie inevitably exercised over China, regardless of the Communist revolution - which is consistent with the idea of a minority bourgeois revolutionary grouping galvanizing the nation and people against the obstructive institutions and customs of before.
Either way, thank you for a very thought provoking article.
You make very good points, but everyone agrees that Mao's swim had "great symbolism"... but nobody every explains what that symbolism actually is.
Chinese people responding to this article have either agreed with me wholeheartedly or been skeptical. So... it's an interesting exposition, at least, as you were kind enough to say. Many thanks
not to be "that" guy, but please replace "equivocate" with proper alternatives. "Equate"?
equivocate
1: to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2: to avoid committing oneself in what one says
I think you are correct about the symbolism and intention of Mao and have always considered the Cultural Revolution was a very good thing for China.
I also think you are too hasty in your judgement of John Lennon.
As for, " I guess yang, masculine, creative, dynamic, propagating Confucianism doesn’t go well with acid trips, or high-intensity pharmaceutical drugs?" I've never had a problem combining Confusionism - which also involves Yin - with the substances you refer to.
I think it must be an age thing. Perhaps you got carried away with your justification of Mao versus the ideological shite that's usually ladeled on by Western sources?
On re-reading this for this posting I was a bit surprised at how extensively it criticised Lennon, LOL. Of course - being an english-speaking human - I love the Beatles. Lennon is fantastic, full stop.
But politically? His point of view is not my cup of tea, and my discussion of him there is on a purely political and social level - not musical, or artistic, or even philosophical. But mixing politics and music is not just hard but probably impossible - as Dylan said, you can't change the world with a song, and he got as close as anyone.
Socially - I think it's fine to critique his political content. Idealism (Imagine), sure, but we also need to end absolute poverty ASAP. The social critique was mostly that citizens were foolish to take political lead from Lennonism instead of Maoism - musical, artistic lead, of course, as Mao was a poet but no amazing songwriter.
I don't blame Lennon for not being a Maoist in the 60s, but I think that was definitely the wrong political choice. Not a big deal - to me, at least, because political ideas and music just don't mix much for me. When the two intersect - like how Black music in 1955 helped start the desegregation movement - it's seemingly by accident and not design.
.. but is there a political theory called Lennonism?
His most political song that could be considered political and not counter-narrative was 'Working Class Hero' and his most strident statement about those that rule us was that they were insane.
Lennonism? No, but that was just a term to sum up his political aspects... which are few, and which are extremely difficult to represent in song. And that's my point - looking for political leadership from troubadours isn't the best way to achieve political goals. It is a good way to have a good time.
Saying that all who rule us are insane is rather political nihilism. But the guy wasn't about to get into weeds on public policy and implementation - he was an artist, and one only quite tangentially interested in politics, and certainly not in revolutionary politics.
... but nobody looked to him for political leadership.
It feels like we are in 'strawman' territory here. As I mentioned earlier, I am pursuaded by the 'crossing the great water' hypothesis, but fabricating a political agenda around Lennon or even pop music in general is just weird.
As you say "... he was an artist, and one only quite tangentially interested in politics, and certainly not in revolutionary politics."