Pieces of the China Puzzle
You are receiving this post/email because you are a patron/subscriber to Of Two Minds / Charles Hugh Smith. This is Musings Report 2024-17.
As a 50+ year student of China's history, culture and intellectual heritage, I hesitate to share my own thinking about China because I fear that what interests me is too obscure to be of general interest. On the other hand, what's obvious may be less consequential than what's obscure.
By way of example, this recent article in Foreign Affairs on Xi Jinping's campaign to unify Confucianism and Marxism was of intense interest to me on multiple levels. The Real Roots of Xi Jinping Thought: Chinese Political Philosophers’ Long Struggle With Modernity.
As the author noted, "his attempted synthesis of Marx and Confucius has prompted bafflement, even mockery, among observers outside and inside China."
To me, there is nothing baffling in this synthesis; it not only makes perfect sense, it can be understood as essential in the broader context of China's history and culture. In my view, Xi has grasped the necessity of recontextualizing the national identity and the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party's control of the nation and its government.
To discuss these topics with any clarity, we must establish some context, both for the topics and for those exploring them. Everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are equally grounded. So please bear with me for a moment before we pick up a few pieces to the China puzzle.
The university system is geared for two tasks: 1) giving student a general knowledge of subjects that builds a foundation for further learning (either academic or self-taught) and 2) the production of scholars and researchers with deep knowledge of narrow, specialized fields. I use the term "working knowledge" for the foundational knowledge base that enable both the organization of additional knowledge and a grounded understanding of causal connections and complexities in a subject.
A significant percentage of the ocean of opinion / commentary we swim in seems generated without the benefit of a working knowledge of the subject. Without a working knowledge, we lack the means to analyze the contexts and conclusions being presented with critical rigor. Without an informed critical analysis, we're at risk of accepting misleading simplifications as insights. This applies to topics from science to history.
For example, if we're discussing directed beam weapons, we're well-served by a working knowledge of physics in terms of the energy requirements needed to generate the beam, the energetic potential of the beam, etc. We don't need to be "experts" per se to expose claims to critical analysis; basic physics offers a sound foundation. We may reach an incorrect conclusion, but a working knowledge increases the odds of reaching a reasonably grounded conclusion: a directed beam weapon plugged into a wall outlet cannot incinerate a vehicle hundreds of yards away due to the limits imposed by physics.
The point of all this is to gently suggest that much of the commentary we're presented about China offers little evidence of a working knowledge of China's history, culture, economic structures and intellectual heritage, and therefore the context and conclusions being presented are more likely misleading rather than insightful.
Yes, propaganda is ubiquitous in our world, and commentaries may be designed to mislead or provoke. Setting aside propaganda / narrative control, what's left deserves to be analyzed critically.
China is not alone in being complex; many nations and regions are equally complex. We approach the immense complexity of human history and culture with humility and seek to expand our knowledge base with wide reading, including scholars' research. Without this knowledge, our views are doomed to superficiality. This is not a judgment, it's cause and effect.
In summary, the more we know, the more circumspect we become about making broad claims and projections.
I am not a scholar, nor am I able to read source documents, as I neither speak nor read Mandarin. I've studied Marx and China academically (under Prof. Chang chung-yuan), read widely, been on the ground and have close Chinese friends.
This informs my hesitancy to share thoughts on China, as I am acutely aware of how much I don't know, and can't know, and how much I might have missed.
In that context, I offer the following observations about China not as completing the puzzle but as pieces of the puzzle.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Charles Hugh Smith's Substack to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.