The following is from the Great Learning, one of the 'Four Books'. It is attributed to Zēngzĭ a student of Confucius:
"Take warning from the house of Yin [Shāng]. The great decree is not easily preserved. This shows that, by gaining the people, the kingdom is gained, and, by losing the people, the kingdom is lost. On this account, the ruler will first take pains about his own virtue. Possessing virtue will give him the people. Possessing the people will give the territory. Possessing the territory will give him its wealth . . . . the accumulation of wealth is the way to scatter the people; and the letting it be scattered among them is the way to collect the people. Virtue is the root; wealth is the result.” (GL-10.5 tr Legge)
The warning in the first sentence is, of course, of dynastic overthrow. To avoid this, rulers and their officials must first attend to their own virtue, and, having thus gained the people, to ensure a fair distribution of the nation's wealth.
Our fearless leaders have not just lost that but knowingly abandoned it. They haven't forgotten anything; they've turned on it.
In my opinion, we are now at the end of the democratic age, the democratic revolution from 1789 until now, an era that Tocqueville saw was deeply rooted in European history all the way back to the Investiture Contest. A doctrine of popular sovereignty in one form or another has underwritten modern politics from 1688 and 1776 to 1917 and 1933--from Hobbes to Schmitt. There are two preeminent versions, the Lockean-representative which inspires liberal democracy, and the Rousseauvan-incarnational (if I may put it that way) which inspires totalitarianism (the vicars of History in history or of the General Will). Even Lenin and Hitler appealed to "the people," if in perverted ways. They felt they had to speak the language of democracy in order to be legitimate. Even Schmitt is in this sense a "democrat."
What's striking in the new idiom of Our Democracy™ is that it really signifies a rejection of the last vestiges of popular will constitutionally registered. Indeed "populism" is a bad word for it. Our elites think they are entitled to rule without popular consent or even a verbal homage to it. They tolerate elections only so long as they yield the right outcome. They have formed a Schmittian friend-enemy grouping, as Mr. Lyons has pointed out, and it is against the people itself.
Lyons is the best. Excellent post. Our Democracy refers to their freedom to rule unimpeded and populism is their pejorative for our reaction to the negative consequences of their policies. They hate us. I was at a NASCAR race last night. They most certainly hate every human being in attendance.
Correction: it's not that our rulers can't protect the border, it's that they won't. This is not mere negligence, nor incompetence, no, it's a destructive spirit that guides our rulers. They don't have the mandate of heaven. They have the mandate of satan.
If you want more content like this, I would suggest subscribing to New Polity magazine. They have content like this in every single issue. Currently they have 12 issues in print, all accessible online (if you subscribe).
When I shared your article, I got this comment and wondered if you'd like to add anything for me to share. Or, should I just tell him to buy a subscription??? Lol. That would be the easiest.
Comment: The question is the meaning of 民 as used 2500 years ago. Here, and in many translations over the past century, the meaning offered is “the common people,” understood by modern Westerners to include all human beings. I long ago sold my reference library of pre-Qin scholarly works, but if I remember correctly it meant only the aristocratic families surrounding the throne and certainly not the peasantry. The translation is crucial to the understanding of the meaning of the philosophy offered by the itinerant consultant Confucius to his client. I’d make this comment directly on the essay but a subscription is needed.
The ancient texts (at least the ones I've read) seem to use 民 mín and 人 rén somewhat interchangeably. The inestimable Kroll defines the former as 'commonfolk, peasant, people', and the latter as 'person, man, mankind'. He notes that in earlier texts rén referred to 'those with names, in contrast with mín'. This would suggest rén as referring to those of at least modest rank or means (this was the case in medieval Europe). Thus 民, I think, would tend to refer to the masses who mostly toiled in the fields. Also, 人 seems to have a more singular connotation (though within texts it's often difficult to tell, of course).
As to the aristocracy, in addition to specific terms of rank, 王 公 侯 etc, general terms such as, 君子 jūnzĭ for the ruling class, and 士 shì for the lesser nobility (roughly, the knightly class) seem to have been used.
Liz I would taken exception to your use of the word "rulers", as technically they do rule but are they not dangerously, horrendous managers? And are not many of these "elected officials" returned overwhelmingly? What is the average re-election rate? You get what you (we) deserve by returning so many of these folks again, and again and again. We appear to no longer liver in a constitutional republic, nor a democracy but more of a kakistocracy. Where so many members appear to be in full loot and plunder mode.
I'd question if they even want the trust of the American people. They seem not to care. They seem more like the enemy of the people, whom they hate.
I'm sure there's a Confucius quote somewhere about what eventually happens to such rulers.
The following is from the Great Learning, one of the 'Four Books'. It is attributed to Zēngzĭ a student of Confucius:
"Take warning from the house of Yin [Shāng]. The great decree is not easily preserved. This shows that, by gaining the people, the kingdom is gained, and, by losing the people, the kingdom is lost. On this account, the ruler will first take pains about his own virtue. Possessing virtue will give him the people. Possessing the people will give the territory. Possessing the territory will give him its wealth . . . . the accumulation of wealth is the way to scatter the people; and the letting it be scattered among them is the way to collect the people. Virtue is the root; wealth is the result.” (GL-10.5 tr Legge)
The warning in the first sentence is, of course, of dynastic overthrow. To avoid this, rulers and their officials must first attend to their own virtue, and, having thus gained the people, to ensure a fair distribution of the nation's wealth.
It's a good start. at least.
..."whom they hate".....indeed, or view with utter contempt
At least Confucius isn't a dead white guy, just white-adjacent.
The mandate of heaven = the trust of the people.
Our fearless leaders have not just lost that but knowingly abandoned it. They haven't forgotten anything; they've turned on it.
In my opinion, we are now at the end of the democratic age, the democratic revolution from 1789 until now, an era that Tocqueville saw was deeply rooted in European history all the way back to the Investiture Contest. A doctrine of popular sovereignty in one form or another has underwritten modern politics from 1688 and 1776 to 1917 and 1933--from Hobbes to Schmitt. There are two preeminent versions, the Lockean-representative which inspires liberal democracy, and the Rousseauvan-incarnational (if I may put it that way) which inspires totalitarianism (the vicars of History in history or of the General Will). Even Lenin and Hitler appealed to "the people," if in perverted ways. They felt they had to speak the language of democracy in order to be legitimate. Even Schmitt is in this sense a "democrat."
What's striking in the new idiom of Our Democracy™ is that it really signifies a rejection of the last vestiges of popular will constitutionally registered. Indeed "populism" is a bad word for it. Our elites think they are entitled to rule without popular consent or even a verbal homage to it. They tolerate elections only so long as they yield the right outcome. They have formed a Schmittian friend-enemy grouping, as Mr. Lyons has pointed out, and it is against the people itself.
Lyons is the best. Excellent post. Our Democracy refers to their freedom to rule unimpeded and populism is their pejorative for our reaction to the negative consequences of their policies. They hate us. I was at a NASCAR race last night. They most certainly hate every human being in attendance.
Correction: it's not that our rulers can't protect the border, it's that they won't. This is not mere negligence, nor incompetence, no, it's a destructive spirit that guides our rulers. They don't have the mandate of heaven. They have the mandate of satan.
I adore you. You remind me why it is so important to read.
If you want more content like this, I would suggest subscribing to New Polity magazine. They have content like this in every single issue. Currently they have 12 issues in print, all accessible online (if you subscribe).
Thank you!
When I shared your article, I got this comment and wondered if you'd like to add anything for me to share. Or, should I just tell him to buy a subscription??? Lol. That would be the easiest.
Comment: The question is the meaning of 民 as used 2500 years ago. Here, and in many translations over the past century, the meaning offered is “the common people,” understood by modern Westerners to include all human beings. I long ago sold my reference library of pre-Qin scholarly works, but if I remember correctly it meant only the aristocratic families surrounding the throne and certainly not the peasantry. The translation is crucial to the understanding of the meaning of the philosophy offered by the itinerant consultant Confucius to his client. I’d make this comment directly on the essay but a subscription is needed.
The ancient texts (at least the ones I've read) seem to use 民 mín and 人 rén somewhat interchangeably. The inestimable Kroll defines the former as 'commonfolk, peasant, people', and the latter as 'person, man, mankind'. He notes that in earlier texts rén referred to 'those with names, in contrast with mín'. This would suggest rén as referring to those of at least modest rank or means (this was the case in medieval Europe). Thus 民, I think, would tend to refer to the masses who mostly toiled in the fields. Also, 人 seems to have a more singular connotation (though within texts it's often difficult to tell, of course).
As to the aristocracy, in addition to specific terms of rank, 王 公 侯 etc, general terms such as, 君子 jūnzĭ for the ruling class, and 士 shì for the lesser nobility (roughly, the knightly class) seem to have been used.
Thank you. I won't make a habit out of sharing other people's comments. I promise.
Always happy to discuss any matters relating to the ancient Chinese texts, studying which I have taken up in my dotage.
Interesting point.
Wise words. Substitute “insect protein” for “Brawndo” and you will realize we basically are living in a less funny version of the film “Idiocracy”.
At least peasants are revolting…
They hate us. Our leaders hate us.
A government who has lost the weapons and the food and has not lost the trust of its people, where is that?
Liz I would taken exception to your use of the word "rulers", as technically they do rule but are they not dangerously, horrendous managers? And are not many of these "elected officials" returned overwhelmingly? What is the average re-election rate? You get what you (we) deserve by returning so many of these folks again, and again and again. We appear to no longer liver in a constitutional republic, nor a democracy but more of a kakistocracy. Where so many members appear to be in full loot and plunder mode.
Short and to the point. You've convinced me to start reading Confucius.