Deng Xiaoping was not a Confucian gentleman

Just ordered a copy of Ezra Vogel's new biography of Deng Xiaoping.  I look forward to reading it; biography affords a certain immediacy and specificity when working through dynamic historical periods.  

The reviews have started to come in already. One, by Christian Caryl, caught my eye in particular.  He is a bit more willing to take Vogel to task for going easy on some of Deng's more brutal political decisions: his key role in the Anti-Rightist campaign in 1957; his early support for the Great Leap Forward; and his active leadership in the killing of hundreds of Beijing citizens in 1989.

These lines jumped off the page for me:

To be sure, there is good reason for a biographer to focus on the way his subject saw the world; we would miss much of Deng's story if we only listened to his critics. The problem here is that Vogel bends so far backward to explain the party's logic on, say, the Tiananmen crackdown or Tibet that it sometimes becomes difficult to understand why anyone might possibly think differently. About one instance in the early 1980s, when Deng harshly dismissed some liberal talk from party intellectuals, Vogel primly informs us that "Western notions of a transcendental God that could criticize the earthly rulers were not part of Chinese tradition." Maybe I've missed something here, but Deng and his comrades spent their entire lives reshaping Chinese society according to the esoteric theories of a German Jewish intellectual. Chinese tradition? Oddly enough, whenever Vogel brings up the subject, it's the party that gets to decide what constitutes Chinese values. The critics somehow never do.

It seems that Vogel is suggesting that without something like a Christian tradition, there is little cultural obstacle to autorcracy in China. 

But, of course a notion of an external standard of good and proper rule, external to the mere will of the ruler, is a part of Chinese tradition: Confucianism.  And I suspect that that external standard, had it had any sort of political standing, would have understood Deng’s support of the Anti-Rightist Movement and the GLF, as well as his decision to kill citizens in 1989, as deeply inhumane.

 A passage from Mencius:

 Prince T’ien asked: “What is the task of a worthy official?”

“To cultivate the highest of purposes,” replied Mencius.

“What do you mean by the highest of purposes?”

“It’s simple: Humanity and Duty.  You defy Humanity if you cause the death of a single innocent person, and you defy Duty if you take what is not yours.  What is our dwelling-place if not Humanity?  And what is our road if not Duty?  To dwell in Humanity and Duty – that is the perfection of a great person’s task.”

Vastly more than one innocent person died as the result of the policies championed by Deng Xiaoping.  By Confucian standards he was inhumane, and thus not worthy to rule. 

Indeed, had Deng, and Mao, not been successful, had the Anti-Rightist Movement and the Great Leap Forward not occurred, there would have been much less need for economic reform in 1978. To put it another way: It was the horrific failures of Deng's favored policies in his earlier career that created his successes later in his career..... and millions of Chinese people died, unnecessarily, along the way.

A Confucian wold argue that Chinese history, and contemporary Chinese society, would have been better had there been no Deng Xiaoping, no Mao Zedong and no Communist Party.  Maybe that's why the powers-that-be took down the statue of Confucius near Tiananmen Square.

Comments

[Justsomeguy]

Despite its horrors, I'd say that Communism has been better for China than capitalism. Look at capitalist reforms that happened despite the Dowager-who-must-not-be-named. Same deal with Russia, really. It isn't that Communism was "good", it had many horrible elements but it is better than the other alternatives on the table. I do agree that Deng was an awful human being. But that is shooting fish in a barrel.

Also, given Confucian treatment of sage-kings, I'd argue that a legitimate ruler is above criticism from a Confucian standpoint. Mencian criticism is an artifact of his historical condition not a reflection of Confucian values. Deng was no true emperor but, again, that is a different discussion.

[Justice&Mercy]

A legitimate ruler, in fact, is not above criticism. Please read 孝经 and 孟子.

昔者天子有爭臣七人，雖無道，不失其天下。

Capitalism has been far better for China than communism. The reforms in China cannot be compared with Russia.

[Justice&Mercy]

As a matter of fact, even the Son of Heaven of Zhou was not above criticism.

See 左传隐公三年:

鄭武公，莊公，為平王卿士，王貳于虢，鄭伯怨王，王曰，無之，故周鄭交質，王子狐為質於鄭，鄭公子忽為質於周，王崩，周人將畀虢公政，四月，鄭祭足帥師取溫之麥，秋，又取成周之禾，周鄭交惡，君子曰，信不由中，質無益也，明恕而行，要之以禮，雖無有質，誰能間之，苟有明信，澗，谿，沼，沚，之毛，蘋，蘩，薀，藻，之菜，筐，筥，錡，釜，之，器，潢汙，行潦，之水，可薦於鬼神，可羞於王公，而況君子結二國之信，行之以禮，又焉用質，風有采繁，采蘋，雅有行葦，泂酌，昭忠信也。