3 ms·

Thanks for these thoughts. One point of departure is that our western concept of authoritarian is incompatible with benevolence. The rest, as you say is uncomfo

Thanks for these thoughts. One point of departure is that our western concept of authoritarian is incompatible with benevolence. The rest, as you say is uncomfortable for many of us to contemplate as necessary.

hnfong 3y ago
Authoritarianism is definitely "compatible" with benevolence at least on some levels. China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants. So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption. So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite. So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible. I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  I sometimes pick up criticism for my belief in positive influence. Somewhere in my world as a teacher is line between heartfelt benevolence and the accusation that all is manipulation and only serves the extant ruling classes. Somewhere in the middle is a truth. My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power. Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.

hnfong 3y ago

Authoritarianism is definitely "compatible" with benevolence at least on some levels. China had always been a large empire, so the rulers did not rule directly. To the rulers at the very top, their interests aligned with the peasants in that both wanted stability, and given that China was such a vast empire, stability was more important to the rulers than squeezing every drop of excess productivity from the peasants. So at least for the rulers at the very top, especially those who became emperor due to being the son of the previous one, their concerns were how to ensure the middle tier officials, who actually ran the day to day affairs, administered their lands fairly without corruption. So basically they invented a system of "scholar-officials" where education consisted of brainwashing aspiring officials about the virtues of "filial piety" and applying concepts of parenthood in governance. "Love the peasants as if they were your children", and "be loyal to the ruler as you would to your parents". This might sound hypocritical to the cynics in modern society, but back then it was not just rhetoric, they were absolutely expected to fully believe in it, because it was intentional brainwashing of the "scholar-official" class by the top-tier ruling elite. So basically that's where the "benevolence" comes from. It's not that the rulers at the top are benevolent per se, but that their interests generally don't come from squeezing the last drop of productivity from peasants for short term gain, but rather their main risk is corrupted middle/lower tier officials abusing their power, so they install systems to ensure the administrators are "benevolent" as far as possible. I'm not saying it's a great system, and I don't think it can or should be replicated outside of China, I'm just trying to describe, as a historical fact, how the Chinese empires were run (ideologically speaking).

nonrandomstring 3y ago
I sometimes pick up criticism for my belief in positive influence. Somewhere in my world as a teacher is line between heartfelt benevolence and the accusation that all is manipulation and only serves the extant ruling classes. Somewhere in the middle is a truth. My theory is that in the West we've forgotten the real meaning of authority, with the same root as author/writer/architect. We've confused it with entitled power. Anyway, thanks indeed for a thoughtful explanation. I'll avoid my immediate instinct to connect it to Plato or other structural ideas I've been educated (brainwashed) with :), and give it some serious thought.