A different view on politics

Letters from O'Brien #14

Dear Mr Smith,

I’ve been thinking about how Chinese view politics differently to us in the West and thought I’d pass some ideas onto you. Very recently, I have been interested in the political divide between the West and the East - I’m no geopolitical expert and so my thoughts are coming from my armchair perspective.

It seems the Western world has long believed (or maybe been incapable of comprehending the contrary) that the rest of the world sees things more or less the same as them, and that the only difference is such things as ideology and cultural predispositions. This is clearly an oversimplification and I’m talking about the average citizen who’s knowledge of the East is but cursory. When I look at the Chinese political opinions, plans, and general outlooks on the social and economic future, it seems like there is something intrinsically, even fundamentally different about their outlook than we traditionally have. And so I’m interested in exploring this points of difference that separate East and Western outlooks on society and politics.

WAR AND PEACE

During this current age of tension, it appears as if China is on the offensive, looming ominously over surrounding nations, and posing a threat to anyone who does not embrace their influence. I have been convinced of China’s hostility for a long time, maybe a product of our own propaganda, however it was not until recently that I decide to look more deeply into their broader beliefs regarding the subjects of war and aggression.

As I have previously written to you Mr Smith, China’s recent history includes both external aggression (towards Taiwan and Hong Kong), and also a repression of its own ‘progressives’ during the Tianamen Square massacre. This has often lead me to believe that the Chinese approach to geopolitical issues is one of subtle aggression and expansion - something akin to the Imperial Japanese during the early 20th century. This may be true, but it also may be a false analysis of what China is actually doing.

Historically speaking, China (or more specifically the various regions within the mainland) have not necessarily been aggressors in conflict. Often - as we have seen in the early 20th century - its military capabilities were utilised first and foremost in its defence. This was never more the case than with the various Chinese factions ‘uniting’ (in an abstract sense) against the invading Imperial Japanese Army before the start of World War II.

I find it interesting that China has united in what appears to be a completely offensive stance against its neighbours and political adversaries, rather than the historical ‘defensive’ position against such things. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I now somewhat believe that China is taking the classical idea of ‘offence as defence’.

The Chinese heroes of the past - namely Sun Tzu and Confucius - did not promote the idea of conflict as ‘patriotic’ in the sense that the West has. Instead, war is seen as ‘a matter of life and death’ as Sun Tzu put it, leading either to safety or ruin. That is, it was not seen as an opportunistic event, but rather a somber reality that must be confronted for survival. Indeed, even the act of fighting was seen as unfortunate to Sun Tzu, who believed the optimal outcome was to overcome the enemy without fighting.

There are splinters of this thinking in the West; namely the Soviets and Nazis in World War II. Despite both nations and ideologies being pitted against each other as ultimate enemies, the Nazis and Soviets shared a unique belief that there very existence was at stake, and thus war was necessary. Both did indeed share an element of opportunism (and patriotism) in their advances against the enemy, but the motivating factor for the average man and woman was the firm belief that the insidious forces amongst them and around them were bound to destroy their very beings if not first confronted and burnt away.

More broadly speaking, the Western world and its view on war has been one of direct intervention. This includes power projection as a tool in geopolitics and direct military strength as a deterrent. The Western view of patriotism - in contrast to the Chinese view - is one in which direct conflict is a necessary and glorious undertaking in defence or offence against an enemy. It seems to me that this is in some way similar to the idea of a ‘holy war’, in which the chance to take part in direct clashes is seen as honourable and good, while the Chinese see war through direct conflict as less honourable than a clean defeat of ones enemies.

China’s ideal plan - whether it be offensive or defensive - seems to be done under the guise of self preservation against conflicting political and social ideas. That is, any war or hostility is not done in the name of opportunism, but in the name of defending the people. The key elements of encirclement and ideological victory through strategy without conflict stand in contrast to the view of ‘war’ held by the West; direct military conflict in order to defeat standing armies. Strategy, for the Chinese, trumps a kinetic engagement.

I do not believe that either one of these approaches is necessarily ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other. Rather they maximise their utility in relation to the culture. It appears to me that the same goals unites both the Chinese and American servicemen; the defence of ones family, values, and country. The difference lay in approach; an American may not be as willing to defend his country by taking part in a slow and seemingly abstract ‘strategy’, but may be more willing to take up arms in a patriotic ‘hot’ war. The contrary may be true for the average Chinese soldier.

COMMUNISM AND CONFUCIANISM

Another interesting point of difference is our different views on culture. Throughout history, the Chinese have held various beliefs, but the prevailing moral code was that presented by Confucius. As one commentator put it, the ideas of Confucius were to China what the ideas of Jesus were to the West.

Some of the key features of Confucianism include wisdom, knowledge, ones place in society, and ones role in the social hierarchy. It is believed that one must attain wisdom, and understand how this applies to ones place in the current society (this seems to mirror Chinese thinking, which I will get to later). Form here, one can apply this cultivated wisdom to become the best version of oneself, and benefiting society as a whole. This includes such things as a societal ladder of responsibility (such as the old teaching the young, and the young respecting and taking care of the old). All of this would hopefully produce social harmony.

One of the primary differences between Confucianism and Christianity is an understanding of what constitutes paramount importance. For Confucius, rulers (good rulers, who care for their people in a paternal manner) are more important within society than those people subservient to them, but also have much greater responsibility to manage. In Christianity, all individuals are viewed with equal value regardless of status or role. I believe that the teachings of Confucius were - in some sense - aiming at what Christianity also hoped to achieve; namely, the betterment of society through individual responsibility.

In my view, the Christian worldview is the most complete in this manner, as it posits that social order is still important, but equal individual value is paramount. It appears to me that from this intrinsic value given to the individual, and the promotion of ideas such as forgiveness, destruction of envy and greed, and the seeking of wisdom, that social harmony (which Confucius longed for) would be achieved, and in a way that allows for a more dynamic creative ability of the individual.

Confucianism began to lose popularity in the face of Communism, I guess due to the blatant incompatibility of the two philosophies. This culminated during the 1949 CCP victory in China, when Mao labelled Confucianism as ‘bourgeois’, and thus negated its teachings. From the on Communism slowly entrenched itself in the ideological teachings and thought patterns of the Chinese. Now, however, the ideas of Confucius are beginning to see a re-emergence. In a surprising change of governing direction, modern CCP officials such as Xi Jinping have attempted (in my mind, although this would never be said in China) to re-build more historically relevant Chinese values and ideas, carefully remove the socially destructive elements of ‘Mao Tse-Tung Thought’ (he is still considered a holy figure), slowly decrease the historical importance of Mao in the public’s mind, and retain some principle of socialism.

Indeed, I believe the re-emergence of Confucianism offers a great opportunity to us in the west, and also benefits the Chinese people. Unlike the destructive nature of the Communist idea, Confucianism holds much in common with our Christian values in the West. If the United States can at least retain this Christian foundation, we may finally be able to see eye to eye with the Chinese in at least on social strata - something we have not been able to do properly for over one hundred years.

‘LINEARISM’ AND ‘LATERALISM’

Perhaps on of the most interesting differences I’m seeing is that the Chinese do not think so much in a ‘linear’ sense, as they do in a ‘circular’ or ‘lateral’ sense. To understand this, I must explains how most Westerners think about political issues and policy.

In the West, a politician will adhere to a particular economic and social worldview, and then, understandably, develop his ideas from this. He will form a political agenda in a rather linear fashion: 1) The basic need for spreading the idea, and then 2) clarify who will spread it, and then 3) clarify how they will spread it. Each one of these points arranged in a linear progression of problems or steps to be addressed. It may also be true that once such a list is created in the mind, the mental vision is restricted down to a hyper focus on this particular ‘line of thought and action’. Combinations of ideas are therefor built up on top of each other like blocks. This seems reasonable and maybe the only way a Western mind approaches such things.

I also believe that Western thinking applies each and every subject to the self before considering (or perhaps not considering) how such a subject should be thought of in relation to other peoples, cultures, or contexts. This may be a result of a type of mental shorthand; it is far quicker to mentalise each subject, issue, or topic in reference to the self. I wonder, however, if this self-referential processing can convince oneself that policies - although never tested outside of one’s own mind - can be mapped to entire populations without error and succeed (which it would seem since their is little given to the non-linear complexities and contexts that separate ideologies from actual experience - i.e. if I just think of myself in this scenario it would work out fine!).

In contrast, the Chinese appear to think in a more lateral sense. That is, they view ideas in relation to other ideas (possibly dis-attached from the self), and these ideas can only make sense within a clarified, albeit complex, context. A Chinese person convinced of an ideology may clarify the meaning of that ideology, what culture it will be applied to, how it will be defined within the culture, and how it works relativistically. Contextual conditions, openness for feedback loops and consequent adaptation, and a more organic unfolding of things, I believe, is the nature of this type of thinking.

One way of thinking is not necessarily ‘better’ than the other. The Western method relies on a more rigid set of logical steps, a sequence that may not make much sense if not followed through from start to finish. Chinese thinking, to a greater degree, allows for adaption and pivoting based on changing contexts, without being stuck in a solidified idea.

This distinction - in my opinion, and based off of what I have read - has proven problematic in the West when it comes to understanding China. Not only has it limited our ability to understand China and its goals, but - if the CCP choose to begin hostilities - it could ultimately give the Chinese the upper hand in some areas. I am starting to believe that strategists, decision makers, and politicians in the West do NOT want to understand China at a fundamental and mutually beneficial level - I am not sure of why, but that seems to be the feeling. Maybe understanding you adversary in such a fundamental way could create empathy? Maybe that’s a bad thing?

Despite the vast differences in thinking, it does indeed appear that the Chinese can understand American logical thinking far better than we can understand Chinese lateral thought. The direct nature of American policy and approaches to geopolitics means that they can be ‘cut off’ without them noticing. One commentator on YouTube highlighted this why using a Henry Kissinger analogy, which is that American political strategy is like Chess using linear moves, while Chinese strategy is like the game Go, in which each move has multiple masked and hidden longer term objectives which can be near-impossible to decode outside of the original context. In this same way, chess relies on direct clashes between the two opposing forces, whereas Go relies on the slow and subtle encirclement of opponents.

LATERAL PROBLEM SOLVING

Recalling his conversations with Chairman Mao, Henry Kissinger states that the Chairman presented his approach to political issues in a similarly lateral manner. While Mao is certainly not the best example of lateral thinking leading to prosperity, his analogies are at least useful in understanding his thought. According to Kissinger, Mao would not jump to an issue followed by a linear solution. Instead, he would give an observation or question, followed by another, and then another, along the way perhaps waiting for comments or answers to his somewhat hypothetical questions. If the majority of these hypothetical questions pointed in the same direction, then it was clear where the conversation should then go.

I find this interesting, as it appears to be a better way of solving issues in a complex system. This is something we could use in part during our political decision making here in the West. Likewise, the Chinese could also benefit from some elements of Western thinking, including the unwavering and solidified idea of law, which cannot be pivoted about based on the context agreed upon by the Party! I do believe these things will eventuate in some degree.

MUTUAL BENEFITS AND MUTUAL PROBLEMS

I believe we in the West are faced with an even more pressing issue if we are to come to a point of understanding, and that is re-establishing the core values that the Western world once stood upon. It is ironic; as China may begin moving towards a more democratic and brighter future, the United States and its allies are slowly falling into destructive ideologies.

My primary concern is with the problems we are facing in the West. Much evil stems from the acceptance of these blatantly anti-human ideologies that are being forced on us. Practically all of our societal and economic problems stem from our blinded coercion under these ideologies. We should be able to see our similarities with the Chinese and Russians, despite our cultural and political differences, rather than blindly accept the notion that ‘our enemies’ are nothing more than opposition. In actuality we have just as much to gain from our ‘enemies’ as we have been told that we have to lose.

The world through our media’s screens has been simplified to a point that is easily understood, consumable, hypnotic, and belies the fact that only in its complexity can it be properly understood. So many have fallen into the trap of binary opposites - that we are locked into an ‘us’ and ‘them’ scenario and blinding us to the fact that we are all individuals. Seeing each other as individuals evokes emotion, and for many politicians this would defeat the purpose of setting up a faceless ‘enemy’ that we must valiantly fight. It is easier to fight an idea, a nation, or a label than it is to fight another human being.

Political and social boundaries will inevitably shift in both the United States and China, and the job of both Westerns and Chinese - as individuals - should be to guide our nations towards common, mutually beneficial aims. In the end this comes down to a renewed vision of ourselves and those around us; our ability to comprehend each others points of view, and come to reasonable conclusions about how we can move forward without hurting one another in the process. This of course requires that we actually put ourselves in the shoes of ‘our enemies’, and understand where the discord lies. We are in an incredibly complex system of individuals and ideas, and only through a deeper understanding can we even dare to say that we ‘know’ what is happening in China, the United States, or anywhere else on earth.

The primary reason - beyond mere interest - that writing this for you and your readers Mr Smith, is to raise an awareness of just a few crucial differences between the West and China. In our current geopolitical scenario, it is crucial that we understand each other, and with clarity. This mutual understanding may become increasingly necessary if we are to negotiate and untimely come to peaceful terms with one another.

The recent situation between the West and Russia has highlighted the political absurdity we have somehow simply accepted in the West; that complex situations do not exist, and that communication with our ‘enemies’ is unnecessary. I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to go to nuclear war over a region-specific dispute on the other side of the planet.

I hope that we can exercise some humility and become more aware of our own lack of understanding, exactly for the previously stated reasons; so that we may stand a chance at bettering the world around us. Through the deeper understanding of our differences, it may be possible to engage in more productive dialogue and discussion with those we deem ideological or political ‘enemies’, with the goal of mutual understanding and honouring of each individual.

I am increasingly of the belief that the Chinese people do in fact have a chance at turning their country around. This opportunity has been violently repressed in the past, however with the integration of Confucianism into state ‘socialism’, decreased Maoist and Marxist-Leninist influences, and increasing autonomy of the individual in contrast to the days of the cultural revolution, it may be possible to develop China into a freer society. It does indeed seem that Xi Jinping may be faced with this decision in the near future, as he may have to choose between retaining absolute control over his citizens, or allowing for more autonomy and thus a more prosperous China.

Westerners must reject the evil ideologies being pushed on us, and return to a state of faith, family, and culture. Likewise, as I highlighted with the re-emergence of Confucianism, it may be possible that better communication and respect will emerge between China and the West. If our values are re-established then they will grow closer. I am cautiously optimistic about both, and I can only hope that these things will lead us to a brighter and more unified future.

Sincerely yours

O’Brien