Uncovering Chinese Anarchy Part 2
From Medium
November 18, 2024
Uncovering Chinese Anarchy Part 2: Mohist Activism and Yangzi’s Individualism
「 … 楊朱、墨翟之言盈天下。天下之言，不歸楊，則歸墨 … 吾為此懼，閑先聖之道，距楊墨，放淫辭，邪說者不得作。」
“The words of Yang Zhu and Mo Di fill the world. If you listen to people’s discourse within it, you will find that they have adopted the views either of Yang or of Mo … I am alarmed by these things, and address myself to the defense of the Way of the former sages, and to oppose Yang and Mo. I drive away their licentious expressions, so that such perverse speakers may not be able to show themselves.”
— Mencius (孟子) in Mencius 3B.14 c. 400–300 BCE, trans. based on James Legge.
In this part, two distinctive alternatives to Confucianism will be examined. As the opening quote suggests, in the time of Mencius, almost a hundred years after Confucius lived, these alternatives had become concerning challenges to Confucius’s way. We have no way of knowing how exactly prevalent these tendencies were, but that they were considered a threat points to the diversity of thought operating in China at the time.
But before discussing these alternatives, I must emphasize that Chinese thought has very rarely been strictly divided. Syncretism was always present in Ancient China and in the history of Chinese thought, and most people in China, historical and modern, have held a combination of Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist beliefs. In the era that this piece discusses, the lack of strict delineations is especially important to keep in mind since the distinction between, say, Daoism and Confucianism had not even been drawn yet. Rather than these being wholly different philosophies, it might be better to understand the thought of Mozi and Yangzi as different tendencies in the pursuit of the Way.
The first section will deal with Mohism, a decidedly anti-Confucian thought. Described in detail in the book Mozi, we see a set of ideas that are in many ways a stone’s toss away from Confucianism, yet bitterly opposed in their few differences. Regardless of how we might disagree with Mozi’s ideas, what this poorly known thinker contributed to Chinese thought is nothing short of vast: logical argument, consequentialism, pacifism, and mutual aid.
Another interesting aspect of Mozi and the Mohists were what they did. The Mohists were China’s first activists¹, doing many of the same things activists today do: lobbying, taking direct action, fostering a link to the lower classes, etc. The Mohists are also a large influence upon modern day mutual aid in China, inspiring the ways many religious and diasporic Chinese groups operate their mutual aid networks.
The second part will cover an even less known figure: Yangzi. Unique to Yangzi, we will have to take educated guesses at his ideas, since he never wrote or transmitted anything down in writing. The sources we do have are quite lacking, and they contain great biases in their descriptions of Yangzi and his ideas. Ironically, it is this lack of direct sources that seems to have given Yangzi’s ideas and their subsequent development an eternal fascination. With few details, thinkers throughout the thousands of years of Chinese and East Asian history have resurrected his ideas, each time with a different purpose appropriate to the age. Sometimes described as an egotist, sometimes an individualist, sometimes a hedonist, sometimes the inventor of human rights², an exploration of the rarely discussed Yangzi will hopefully be a treat in this piece on Anarchy in China. If even some of the above labels reasonably describe Yangzi, then we have him to thank for the ideas of individualism that we find across Chinese history, which may have themselves been an inspiration to figures such as Max Stirner, who will be a point of comparison to this enigmatic person.
Mozi and Mohism
As a rival tendency to Confucianism, the Mohists were great thinkers and activists. While Confucius was friendly to lower class students, members of the Mohists were mostly drawn from the lower class. Their membership was responsible for the development of logical argument in China, and they took a critical perspective, at least regarding the points that the Confucians raised. For example, the Mohists did not accept Fate as a factor in the world,³ and were willing to be bolder than the Confucians. They also believed in different ideals, prizing inventors and innovators over the Confucian rulers.⁴ This combination of ideas, a rejection of fatalism and a forward looking orientation, may have been what led them to embrace activism.
They justified their ideas through consequentialist ethics, believing that maximizing the collective welfare was best.⁵ From consequentialism, they argued against elaborate funerals, music (which was played at the expense of the poor), and finally war itself.⁶ In other words, they were pacifists. Finally they made an argument for “Inclusive Care” (Jian’ai, 兼愛), which is the first instance the principle of mutual aid was named in Chinese history.
They not only spoke of their ideas, but lived them. The Mohists were trained siege defense experts, and skilled orators who sought audiences with rulers,⁷ often risking their lives doing so, which can be described as direct action.
With their activism and critical perspectives on the upper classes, by the time one reads of their emphasis on bureaucracy and meritocracy,⁸ it may seem that they were quite similar to Marxist-Leninists.
In fact, this was the general interpretation of the Mohists from around 1950 to 1980, and probably before then.⁹ Before the 80s, Western Historiography often had an analogy: Confucianism was akin to Liberalism, Mohism to Marxist-Leninism (Communism), and Daoism to Anarchism. Indeed, there were some similarities, but this Eurocentric scheme was obviously inaccurate, especially when it came to the Mohists and Daoists. The Mohists were not at all trying to overthrow the economic order. They were also monarchists, and perhaps religious, believing their ideas to be correct due to its correspondence with Heaven’s will.¹⁰ And while the Mohists articulated Mutual Aid, they did not articulate anything resembling Communism.
Regardless, the Mohists contributed an enormous legacy to Chinese thinking. Their activism and ideas kept them at the forefront of Chinese history for centuries, until the creation of the first Chinese empires. By then, their ideas had been integrated into most other Chinese forms of thought, leaving very few who had to remain a Mohist and abide by their austerity and rejection of Music.¹¹ Eventually the ideas of the Mozi were injected into a growing religious Daoist movement before the book itself was lost. What we have of the Mozi are from what is preserved in the Daoist canon.
Mozi, the Man
Despite developing such an important set of ideas, we know less about Mozi than even Confucius. Numerous speculations on his life have been put forth.¹² One theory proposes that he was from a class below that of Confucius. Whereas Confucius was a Shi, a low aristocratic class that was just then beginning to take over influential court positions, Mozi seems to talk in simpler and repetitive ways that may indicate his being from the artisan class. His name, too, is unusual. Mozi translated means Master Mo, where Mo is the family name. Yet this family name is exceedingly rare in China, and translates to “Ink.” Proponents of the “lower class” Mozi often also point to his name as possibly indicative of tattoos, which would imply he was a criminal.
However, such a theory is equally suspect in numerous ways as well. For one, though Mozi speaks simply, his knowledge of the classics and history is easily on par with Confucius, and while his prose may seem repetitive, it is also a fair bit more elegant than it seems in Classical Chinese. Due to the extreme class barriers present in Ancient China, it would have also been exceptionally rare for someone in a lower class position to have obtained as much knowledge and training in the same exact classics that the Shi were taught without being a Shi themselves.
The only two speculations on his background that we can agree on was that he likely was a former Confucian given his in depth knowledge of their ideas, and he had a certain affinity for the lower classes that exceeded his contemporaries. Many of his followers were drawn from the lower classes, and some of his ideas possess a more folkish nature that are, while not a smoking bullet of a lower class background, indicative of a strong familiarity with it.
What we do know is that Mozi was an exceptionally talented warrior who led his fellow Mohists on the field in sieges.¹³ The knowledge of warfare in the Mozi is indisputably the knowledge of an expert, or more likely the collected knowledge of a strongly martial tradition, even as opposed to offensive warfare as they were.
With scant details on its founder, it’s likely the affiliation of Mozi with the lower classes and his understanding of warfare that created this unique school of thought. Beyond this brief overview, we will explore one of their key ideas: Inclusive Care.
Inclusive Care and Universalism
The most relevant idea to Anarchy the Mohists developed is their concept of Inclusive Care.¹⁴ Written as 兼愛 (Jian’ai), this humble concept was considered so important that nearly all philosophical tendencies had to respond to it. Mencius himself castigated the Mohists for such an idea,¹⁵ despite then taking it and putting a Confucian twist upon it.¹⁶
The crux of the disagreement between the Confucians and the Mohists was largely over the place of ritual.¹⁷ As discussed in Part I, rituals are the customs, habits, traditions, and social norms of a society or culture. To Confucians, these serve a functional role: they help develop an individual’s virtue. However, for the Mohists, they disagreed about the capacity of rituals to successfully result in societal harmony. Furthermore, the Mohists were reacting to what they saw as a hypocrisy of proclaimed Confucians. They viewed Confucians as less than virtuous individuals, who often failed to accomplish their goals and often caved to the ruler’s wishes due to the benefits their advisory positions afforded them. Furthermore, they were also too unwilling to challenge a ruler.¹⁸ One such example should suffice:
[T]hey use various elaborate rites and music to delude people. They use prolonged mourning and false grief to deceive relatives. They believe in Fate and accept poverty, yet they are arrogant and self-important. They turn their backs on what is fundamental and abandon their duties, finding contentment in idleness and pride. They are greedy for drink and food. They are indolent in carrying out their responsibilities and fall into hunger and cold, but, when endangered by starvation and freezing, they have no way of avoiding these things. They are like beggars. They hoard food like field mice. They stare like billy goats. They rise up like castrated pigs. When a gentleman laughs at them, they angrily reply: “Useless fellow! What do you know of good Confucians.” In spring, they beg for wheat. In summer, they beg for rice. When the five grains have already been harvested, they attach themselves to large funerals with their sons and grandsons all following along, and so they get their fill of drink and food. If they are put in charge of several funerals, they have enough to live on. They depend on other people’s households for food and rely on other people’s fields for wine. When a rich man has a funeral, they are very happy and say delightedly: “This is a source of clothing and food.” — Mozi, 39.4
From this perspective, the Mohists saw following rituals as a major flaw. To them, the Confucians who were supposed to be the ones who closely followed ritual often turned out to be less than virtuous. Furthermore, the Confucians’ rationale for following ritual was out of a latent conservatism in their ideas, which the Mohists rejected.¹⁹ While the Confucians venerated great sages of the past that created great accomplishments in the past, the Mohists took as their models great innovators and inventors. Combined with their rejection of Fate, this made them forward looking.
When the Mohists then proposed Jian’ai, the Confucians were appalled not because they disagreed with the need to care for others beyond one’s immediate family, but because of the lack of ritual for the Mohists. That the Mohists appealed more to logic, utility, and were universalists, the Confucians felt that this neglected the role of emotions, feelings, and intentions behind actions.²⁰ While the Mohists believed one could logically reach a pro-social ethical position, the Confucians believed this was an affront precisely because in their view it failed to create the feelings of love, duty, and especially filial piety. That is, it failed to cultivate the individual.
Inclusive Care, to stop delaying its definition, is the first time the idea of Mutual Aid was articulated in China, if not in the world.²¹ It opens up the field of consideration to all other humans, without people needing to cultivate it through ritual. In essence, it is an articulation of Universalism, that an idea can apply to all, though this does not imply it should apply to all in equal degree. Confucianism does consider all people able to morally cultivate themselves, but the Mohists differ in that they did not appeal to tradition. Instead they recognize that it is possible for people to find their way to a principle through reciprocation of the practice over one’s personal intentions and feelings.
A literal translation of this concept into English is Universal Love. There are problems with this, since it tinges the concept with many connotations for English speakers. The characters of Jian’ai will help dispel them. The first character 兼 (Jian) means non-discriminatory or impartial, and so the recipients of Inclusive Care are theoretically anybody. The second character 愛 (ai) in modern and classical Chinese is the word love. However, it was more concrete in the day of the Mohists, rather than abstract as it is today. In the days of Mozi, ai implied concrete actions of care for another. In short, the idea of Inclusive Care is the ideal to theoretically care for anyone, regardless of their tradition or feelings.
Unambiguously, Jian’ai is also intended to be mutual, a relationship that provides benefit (utility) to both sides. This is said in Mozi 14.3:
If there were universal mutual love in the world, with the love of others being like the love of oneself, would there still be anyone who was not filial? If one were to regard father, older brother and ruler like oneself, how could one not be filial [towards them]? Would there still be anyone who did not feel affection? If one were to regard younger brother, son or minister like oneself, how could one not love [them]? Therefore, there would be no-one who was not filial or not loving. Would there still be thieves and robbers? If there were regard for the houses of others like one’s own house, who would steal? If there were regard for the persons of others like one’s own person, who would rob?…
The idea was often stated as “universal mutual love” written as “兼相愛”, where the character 相 unambiguously means “mutual.” This, then, clearly reveals the connection of this idea to modern day Mutual Aid.
Where the Mohists may perhaps differ with activists today who advocate mutual aid is that for the Mohists Inclusive Care is seen as justified by Heaven. This perception that Universal is the morally and religiously objective principle of the world leads the Mohists to support Imperialism and conquest:
Yu said: “People everywhere, I ask you to listen to my words. It is not that I, one small person, dare to stir up this warlike activity. It is due to the foolishness of the You Miao which I am acting on Heaven’s behalf to punish. So I am leading the hosts of the feudal lords and princes to bring the You Miao to submission.” Yu’s bringing the You Miao to submission was not because he sought to increase his wealth and nobility, nor because he sought happiness and prosperity, nor to bring pleasure to his ears and eyes. It was because he sought to promote the world’s benefits and eliminate the world’s harms.” This was Yu’s “universal” and is what Master Mo Zi means when he speaks of “universal”, taking Yu as his model. — Mozi 16.10
For the Mohists, then, Inclusive Care is an idea that is sacrosanct. It is, to them, the very means to change the world for the better, and as such, it is a commandment. For who, then, is able to judge when someone is performing Inclusive Care sufficiently? Conveniently, it can only be the Mohists:
Master Mo Zi spoke, saying: “I have Heaven’s intention just like wheelwrights have compasses and carpenters have squares. Wheelwrights and carpenters take up their compasses and squares to evaluate square and round in the world, saying: ‘What conforms is right. What does not conform is wrong.’ Now the books of the world’s officers and gentlemen cannot be completely recorded and their doctrines cannot be completely enumerated. Above, they persuade the feudal lords. Below, they persuade ranked officers. But they are a long way from benevolence and righteousness. How do I know this? I say it is because I have the clearest standard in the world to evaluate them with.” [emphasis mine] — Mozi 26.8
Thus, though the Mohists clearly believe in individual agency, people are measured against their ability to conform to Heaven, which we could hardly call a celebration of free will. Thus, while mutual aid is a practice of one’s individuality and equality, Inclusive Care is constructed as a quasi-religious commandment that must be fulfilled regardless of one’s desire, to the point that conquest and imposition from above is allowable if necessary. In other words, while the principle they articulate is inherently a pull towards equality and anarchy, their justification is via hierarchy and conformity, and hence they sabotoge the radical potential of their idea. The means and the ends do not match.
This is in fact the primary flaw of the Mohists. They were decidedly hierarchical, and could never overcome this limitation. Despite the strength of this idea of Inclusive Care, they were limited by hierarchy.
In addition, the Mohists seem to have overreached with this idea. The Early Mohists believed human nature to be freely malleable, perhaps another reason why they were so radical and willing to directly confront their social conventions.²² However, by Mencius’s era, the Later Mohists had revised their views to a more realistic point:
[The Mohist] Yi said, ‘Even according to the principles of the learned, we find that the ancients acted towards the people “as if they were watching over an infant.” What does this expression mean? To me it sounds that we are to love all without difference of degree; but the manifestation of love must begin with our parents.’ [emphasis mine] — Mencius 3A.5
Yet despite their hierarchical biases and unrealistic views, we must give credit to the Mohists for their notion of mutual aid, articulated thousands of years before European Anarchism began. This seed of Mohism would outlast its creators and combine with notions of individuality and equality through its interactions with Confucianism, eventually becoming imprinted upon the peasantry through Daoist religion in the centuries to come, leading to the tendency of Chinese, East, and Southeast Asians both in their homelands and diasporas to take the initiative in creating and forming mutual aid networks and organizations.
Mohists, the Activists
As activists, the Mohists achieved a level of duty and commitment on par with some of the best in our history. An in depth discussion of their tactics can be found in Grassroots Activism of Ancient China by Hung-Yok Ip. Here, we shall focus on their effectiveness as activists from a critical perspective.
Though the Mohists were disciplined, the ultimate result of Mohist activism was not a satisfactory one. Somewhat successful in the short term, with hindsight, the Mohists unfortunately were unable to make a strong impression on the trajectory of Chinese history. In part this was out of their control. Operating in deeply hierarchical societies, while perpetual warfare raged around them, they were in an extraordinarily hostile environment for their ideas. However, even being charitable to their circumstances, they also evidently tied themselves up with some of their methods and beliefs.
In terms of tactics, the Mohists had two that we can discuss. They were strong practitioners of lobbying and counterviolence.
Lobbying was their preferred method of engagement and main way of leveling political change. In a monarchical society, this itself was a great challenge to power. Speaking poorly or carelessly could land someone in prison, and punishments ranged from mutilation to castration to slavery. Lobbying was therefore a bold choice of theirs.
To their credit, the Mohists were extremely disciplined and skilled orators in their courts. But despite the positive intent behind this praxis, the Mohists hardly succeeded. Kings simply did not wish to listen, and oftentimes used their lobbying as a chance to situate Mohists as a free defense squadron in their city, while only paying lip service to their goals. Some Mohists were even bought out and became bureaucrats in service to their assigned ruler, leaving their ideals behind in pursuit of prosperity:
Master Mo Zi sent Sheng Chuo to serve Xiang Ziniu. Three times, Xiang Ziniu invaded the territory of Lu and three times, Sheng Chuo accompanied him. Master Mo Zi heard about this and sent Gao Sunzi to request that he be withdrawn. He said: “I sent Chuo so that he would stop arrogance and rectify depravity. Now Chuo receives a high salary yet he deceives his master. Three times his master invaded Lu and three times Chuo accompanied him. This is to whip a horse with its martingale. I have heard this — ‘To speak of righteousness but not practise it is to commit an offence knowingly.’ It is not that Chuo did not know this. It is that salary triumphed over righteousness.” — Mozi 49.20
The short of it is that lobbying in this era was at best far less effective than it was in a democratic society. Without legal checks upon a ruler’s power, this tactic was practically useless without backing of violent force, of which the Mohists refused to use. Furthermore, an environment of total war created a competitive interstate situation that encouraged an increase in draconian governance, the opposite tendency that would have helped the Mohists.
In fact, lobbying and a shunning of offensive violence likely stunted their ability to enact change. The Mohists never seemed to see lower class resistance as a viable means of building resistance and bargaining power. Perhaps this is because the Mohists never intended to destroy the sociopolitical order, but to freeze and perfect it.
The Mohists however were extremely successful in their application of defensive counterviolence, notably in siege defense. This was direct action par excellence. Arguably, the majority of success that the Mohists did have came from their reputation as defenders, and their insistence on defensive direct action kept their school of philosophy around longer merely by the patronage they received from rulers.
Looking upon the whole of Mohist tactics, they appear similar to modern day reformists, but with an edge of defensive counterviolence. Lobbying and challenging power were the right direction for the Mohists, but without the solid backing of strength built with the lower classes, they were never quite able to propel themselves to the influence of the Confucians.
Their willingness to undertake counterviolence, however, is quite the departure from reformism. Other details make their deviations more clear: they themselves were organized in a cadre, and were strongly willing to sacrifice their lives for their ideals.²³ Their austere discipline also evokes affinity with the writings of revolutionaries like Sergei Nechayev. In his (in)famous Catechism of a Revolutionary he opens with this cold line:
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
which strikes a similar chord to the way the Mohists are against music and funerals. It seems the deeply entrenched monarchy spurned them to take on techniques that in Europe developed between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Without legal checks on power, the Mohists were in such a precarious situation that they present a curious blend of these two tendencies.
Other similarities may even be seen between them and Nelson Mandela and the anti-Apartheid movement, and perhaps the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers.²⁴ Their pacifism too may be a useful point of comparison with other pacifist groups.²⁵
One further unnerving piece to the Mohist’s similarity to Nechayev is their misogyny. The Catechism coldly treats women as so:
The sixth category is especially important: women. They can be divided into three main groups. First, those frivolous, thoughtless, and vapid women, whom we shall use as we use the third and fourth category of men. Second, women who are ardent, capable, and devoted, but whom do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding; these must be used like the men of the fifth category. Finally, there are the women who are completely on our side — i.e., those who are wholly dedicated and who have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable or our treasures; without their help, we would never succeed.
The treatment of the third category is to exploit them, treating them as ‘slaves.’ Perhaps there is a translation problem or missing intertextuality here that may make this verbiage seem less harsh, but this callousness is simply unnecessary and harmful. The Mohists too, think lowly of women, and criticize the Confucians exactly for their better treatment of women:
[When a Confucian] takes a wife, he goes to meet her in person, correctly attired as a servant. He takes the reins of the cart himself and hands her the cord to draw herself up as if honouring a revered parent. The wedding ceremony is conducted with solemnity just like conducting a sacrifice. This is to turn high and low upside down, and is perverse conduct towards parents who are brought down to the level of the wife whilst the wife infringes on those above. In serving parents, how can something like this be called filial?
The Confucians say: “After taking a wife, she can join with you in carrying out the sacrifices whilst a son will protect the ancestral temple, therefore they are highly regarded.”
In reply I say: “These are false words insofar as a man’s uncles and older brothers maintain the ancestral temple for several decades, yet, when they die, he mourns them for one year whilst the wives of older and younger brothers, who assist at the sacrifices to his ancestors, are not mourned at all. Thus, mourning wives and sons for three years is certainly not because they maintain [the ancestral temple] or assist at sacrifices. Such favourable treatment of wives and sons is already excessive. They also say, ‘It is the way of honouring parents.’ In wishing to treat ‘thickly’ those towards whom they are most discriminatory, they treat ‘thinly’ those who are most important. Is this not a great deception?” — Mozi 39.2
One sees a certain irony in their proposing of Inclusive Care when it evidently doesn’t extend to women.
Mohism: The Conclusion
Hierarchy: The Flaw of the Mohists
Despite being against Confucianists, the Mohists were quite similar to them. They ultimately both had a similar goal of everlasting peace in their horrifically wartorn world. However, the Mohists’ strong hierarchical tendencies make them in some ways a step back from the Confucian critique, and shows they are a sort of continuation of the Militarists discussed in Part I.
Furthermore, this hierarchical tendency is demonstrated in their perception of women. Despite their anti-Confucianism, they are actually more misogynistic in their treatment of women. In fact, it is likely that their anti-Confucianism was largely due to that misogyny.
From this vein, compared to Mencius, who acknowledged that women could be more virtuous than men,²⁶ we can see the greater context of the Radical Critique of Confucius. His articulation of a less hierarchical world represents the first step towards gender equality, despite its great flaws. And through Mencius, the Confucians took steps towards integrating Mohism with Confucianism.²⁷
The Mohists for all their innovations and discipline, could never quite manage to overcome their greatest limitation: hierarchy. Every one of their strategies and tactics were always cut down by limitations of hierarchy. With their strong belief in Heaven’s will behind them, they proposed deeply unpopular ideas, and without focusing on the lower classes, they never built up enough power to force rulers’ hands.
At their worst, they also indirectly led to the development of legalism, through their proposals for meritocracy and bureaucracy. Legalism is an amoral set of ideas that underpinned and enabled the formation of vast and cruel Chinese empires. That Mohism would contribute to such a thing is something know in hindsight, but perhaps should be more obviously emphasized given their hierarchical tendencies.
Their best came in their direct action — their willingness to use defensive counterviolence kept them relevant and renowned for generations, but without the destruction of hierarchy, this would prove to only be a delay in their eventual irrelevance. It would later be the Daoists and Confucians who pick up what the Mohists leave behind, carrying on the seeds that the Mohists left them.
Mencius, despite critiquing Jian’ai still integrates the insights of the Mohists. Though hostile to their ideas, Mohist Universalism would regardless become part of the Confucians. Even the idea of Mutual Aid would become a deeply Confucian concept, enshrined as bo’ai (博愛), which is the word that the French Revolution’s fraternité is now translated to in Chinese.
On the side of the Daoists, from whom we rediscovered the Mozi, we also see development on the Mohists’ ideas. Notably, the Daoists would become the most accomplished activists and revolutionaries throughout China’s long Imperial age. They also carried the ideas of Inclusive Care to a further extent than the Mohists, this time using it as a way to connect and remain deeply connected with the lower classes. Notably the Five Peck Daoists and related and subsequent Yellow Turban Rebellion were exemplary applications of Inclusive Care. The Five Peck Daoists used this idea to run a whole society in Sichuan while independent from the empire.
Whether from the Confucians or Daoists, the Mohists’ ideas of mutual aid would be picked up by modern Chinese anarchists and Chinese diaspora. Arguably, this idea is responsible for the survival of these various groups despite their challenging circumstances. It and the Mohists importance to Anarchy in China, as I hope is clear now, is possibly unmatched.
Yangzi and Yangism
Whereas Mohism had a distinct tradition and sources for us to search through, for the ideas of Yangzi there is nothing similar. Yangzi never wrote down his ideas, and the only source that claims descent from him appears to be largely the fabrication of a writer almost 700 years later.²⁸
It’s an irony then, that for such an obscure figure, so much interest and fascination in this gap in writing has paradoxically kept him, mysterious as he was, alive in the East Asian consciousness across 2000 years of history.
Without a direct primary source, the ideas have instead become timeless. Infinitely malleable to whatever is most appropriate to the age, ideas of what we think Yangzi said have made it such an important set of ideas that it is on par with Confucianism and Mohism itself.
We aren’t completely in the dark. We have hints and fragments, a shadowy image that suggests what was. But it is a challenge writing this part, given the variation in views on how accurately we understand this figure’s ideas, and how much we can know them. As such, I will attempt to provide my analysis and simply suggest reading through the footnotes
Along the way, we will get a glimpse into the Daoists who will be the subject of the next part of this story, gain insight into China’s individualist and hedonist traditions, and see some similar ideas to Max Stirner’s.
Yangzi, the Man
Who was Yangzi? Part and parcel with a lack of his writings, what we have here is not only a lack of any sort of personal information, but what we do know is largely a result of rumors, themselves a sandy foundation.
It’s almost certain that Yangzi was a Shi like Mozi and Confucius. Rumors also indicate he was a traveler, similar to other philosophers of the time as well. He also likely traveled with several followers, as testified in rumors and which was common practice at the time.²⁹ Since the Mencius mentions how widespread Yangism is, it was probably through his students that his ideas survived beyond his death.
What becomes unclear and unsubstantiated is what in his life influenced his beliefs. There really isn’t anything conclusive here, but I will state one possibility, but like all the other theories, without firm evidence.
We know from the Analects that at the time of Confucius’s writings, there were aristocrats who were disgusted by the state of the world. Many of them gave up upon changing society, deeming the world inevitably lost to warfare and strife. Within the Analects, Confucius himself often encounters and debates with these people.³⁰
There seem to have been two responses — the first were a group that had connections to an old collection of thinkers known as the Agriculturalists, a movement full of followers that were likely nearly, or genuinely, anarcho-communists and whom practiced a simple lifestyle with everybody doing their own work in a village or commune-like living situation. We will discuss the Agriculturalists in their connection with the Daoists next time.
The other group of dissenters from the world seemed to have chosen some sort of reclusive withdrawal, either leaving to become solitary hermits or living with a few friends. These are probably closer to the tendency that Yangzi was espousing, or they were perhaps the very inspiration for his ideas.³¹ That they were becoming recluses was an act of individual defiance, which is what has led to some such as me to believe this group has some influence upon Yangzi. It is on this flimsy possibility that I claim that Yangzi was possibly leading a group of Shi that was more influenced by aristocratic views than his contemporaries.
Yangzi, who came after Confucius and before Mencius, would certainly have known about these groups. Either his ideas would be taken up and upheld by this milieu, or he became a very influential voice within them. But perhaps ultimately, like his ideas, it matters not who he was, but who we believe him to be.
What Yangism May Have Been
Sources
There are a few different kinds of sources we have on Yangzi’s ideas. We have the biased writings of his contemporaries, such as Mencius or Zhuangzi.³² We have a few rumors that were orally circulating around at the time.³³ Then there are some later overviews of philosophy that include a less biased account of Yangzi’s ideas.³⁴ And lastly there is a section of the much later Liezi that is a fabrication but perhaps contains some vestiges of classical Yangism.³⁵ The Liezi is also special in that its fabrication renews the ideas of Yangism for its time, giving us a hedonistic Yangism for the Medieval Chinese era that became embedded into Daoism.³⁶
Some also include writings that we think are influenced by or written by Yangists.³⁷ These tend to come from Daoist sources, and though Yangzi does have an affinity with Daoism, since they lack proper attribution, it’s hard to say whether or not such writings should be counted as Yangist.
The veracity of each of these sources are difficult to know, so depending on your opinion on the relative accuracy of each kind of source one gets a different picture of Yangzi. In a way, this is fitting: the individualist philosopher has a unique interpretation for the individual that seeks him.
One Interpretation
The most consistent point about Yangzi that is brought up is a focus on the self and centering discussion upon it. Admittedly it is difficult to discuss these terms due to linguistic constraints, and because the sources themselves disagree which term Yangzi himself used. From our most unbiased source on Yangzi, the description of his philosophy is guiji (貴己), literally meaning “valuing the self.”³⁸ However, the Mencius describes this in different terms, stating his philosophy was weiwo (為我), literally meaning “for I.”³⁹
When Mencius says Yangzi is weiwo, he means Yangzi is solely an egotist, that he is selfish and cares only for himself. He is described as “unwilling to pluck a hair from himself to save the world.”
However, if one takes the Lüshi Chunqiu (吕氏春秋, Master Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals) as the more reasonable interpretation, where Yangzi focuses on “valuing the self,” this does not inherently imply Yangzi was selfish. This is because ji includes a connotation on one’s self and the physical form or body.⁴⁰ To make the distinction between wo (我) and ji (己) clear, think of it like this: wo merely means I, while ji means that, physical or psychological, which controls I. Armed with this distinction, one can see the possibilities of what Yangzi was likely proposing.
Whereas weiwo implies selfishness, guiji implies that I ought to be in bodily and spiritual control, and thus obligations, society, the collective, the ruler, the government, the law, Heaven, or whatever other thing that is not I therefore has no place in dictating what I ought to do.
Essentially, for Yangzi, we cannot so easily disregard our physical form due to the requirements of others. Self-sacrifice is a slippery slope to Yangzi. In his day, rampant militarism often meant self-sacrifice was dying for soulless war machines. For Yangzi, rather than self sacrifice and prioritizing the collective to achieve lasting peace, he instead believes it possible to dismantle the militarism of his age by encouraging people to simply view themselves as valuable and worth listening to, physically and psychologically, and to refuse sacrifice. Doing what you want, therefore, would destroy militarism by ensuring nobody would be willing to obey commands to even have war anymore.
And this was justified by an appeal to this being our nature (xing, 性). It is good for us to adhere to our nature, to allow what is to continue along its path, to keep one’s nature intact. Yangzi thus distinguishes between an inner ‘nature’ and an outside world that can contaminate it.⁴¹
The implications of Yangism are, of course, quite anarchic. This is perhaps the first time a principle in China has been articulated that goes against collective obligations, the law, the military, the government, and religion. There is just one bit that causes the Yangism to fall short of proper anarchy: what if you wanted to make a sacrifice? What if you wanted to harm yourself? Or, say someone inadvertently harms themselves, would they be forgiven by Yangzi or deemed a failure to abide by his ideas?
We of course won’t know exactly what Yangzi would have thought in each of these situations, but it seems he falls short of anarchy since he places a commandment to preserve one’s physical and spiritual self above all else, even potentially in situations of temporary or relative harmlessness for far greater gain. This principle is also potentially harmful regarding sex workers, especially those engaged in practices of Kink. A practitioner of Kink might even reply to Yangzi with the blunt response that they are in control of their physical and spiritual self, and that they still choose to endure a temporary sacrifice of their body’s physicality for pleasure. For some, this might also be the only way they can survive in the world, in which case, they must make a sacrifice of their body in order to continue to have a body to protect.
Furthermore, the appeal to nature is yet another form of authority and hierarchy, with nature just replacing the function of Heaven for the Mohists in justifying Yangzi’s individualism. This too would disqualify Yangzi’s ideas from true anarchy, with the elevation of another sacrosanct principle in place of the others, despite how close it gets.
Regardless, Yangzi, with a focus on the individual, on innate qualities, and psychological desire, thus comes closest to anarchy of all the thinkers mentioned so far, going even beyond Confucius.
Stirner and Yangzi
Those who may have read Max Stirner’s The Unique and Its Property may have already noticed various similarities here. These similarities are possibly not even coincidence — it’s clear that Max Stirner had heard about Daoism from Hegel,⁴² and it may be that his Egoism is inspired by what he learned of Daoism. Based upon what I have found in a preliminary examination, it seems that the Daodejing was the primary book discussed by Hegel. However, it doesn’t seem like Yangzi could have influenced Stirner. No mentions of the Liezi or Yangzi is present throughout these syllabi, and at the time, no translation of the Liezi to German or French had been made yet.
Could the Daodejing possibly inspired some similar ideas to Yangism in Stirner then? It very well could have been. The Daodejing preceded Yangzi, and may have even been known by him. Additionally, the Daodejing’s authorship is entangled with the hermit tradition that Yangzi may have drawn upon. The connection seems less due to lineage, but through common inspiration to both sets of ideas.
Briefly, Stirner’s ideas are simply that you are Der Einzige, a term from German that has recently been rendered as The Unique in recent translation.⁴³ In short, you, the unique you, are undefinable. You simply are. As sole definer for yourself, not government, state, family, society, religion etc. determines you nor what you do. In this brief description, one immediate difference already stands out: Stirner is purely being a descriptivist, while Yangzi is prescriptive.
Stirner’s ideas may sound like unfettered individualism for English readers, but in East Asia, Stirner’s ideas are perhaps more obvious. He’s not saying someone is merely or only selfish.⁴⁴ He’s pointing out that we, ourselves, ultimately have control over ourselves, despite the institutions designed to tell us otherwise. Those institutions, ultimately, control insofar as a multitude of people believe they are in control. At the base of their power is nothing, nothing but belief. And in truth, power lies only with you.⁴⁵
For Stirner, there’s no clean way to separate you from the world. Your friends, having been touched by your influence, may as well be extensions of you.⁴⁶ Your possessions may as well be integral parts of yours, or objects to consume if you’d like.⁴⁷ Where you ends, and not-you begins, who’s to say?
This way of conceptualizing the individual is more intuitive for East Asians whose cultures do not envision an individual as an isolated person, but as a part of a greater social web. East Asian anarchists such as Tsuji Jun had an easy time digesting such an idea, because for us, Stirner’s work does not imply outright hedonism or nihilism, but merely the ability to define ourselves independent of that collective, and allows us to consider our own needs independent of the collective. In short, for East Asians, Stirner is pointing out we have it within us to be what we wish, without compromising our collectivity.
Then Yangzi, who argues to keep our spiritual or physical part of us in control is very nearly similar, reaching a similar conclusion. However, Stirner’s ideas differ in that they are positive in our range of actions, while Yangzi’s is negative. In other words, Stirner implies we may do whatsoever we wish even to disregard another’s ask or command, while Yangzi says we may avoid doing whatsoever we are told or suggested.
Another distinction is that Yangzi conceives of an inner and outer divide with his idea of nature, that is we have an internal component to ourselves that we ought to defend. Stirner, on the other hand, does not have such a divide, at some points arguing facetiously that others may as well be extensions of ourselves.
However both are similar in a focus on the individual, and it is from Yangzi that a focus on the individual first makes its way into Chinese thought. And, from the focus on the individual, both thinkers get conclusions that are near anarchic in conclusion, if not totally anarchic for Stirner.
As a final note, Yangzi’s legacy is a pithy example of Stirner’s “creative nothing.” We have nothing of Yangzi’s, yet this nothing has been a source of creation for ideas that have continually influenced East Asian history from utopia, to hedonism, to human rights.⁴⁸
Yangism in Conclusion: Later Yangism, Hedonism, and Utopia
Yangism would prove a lasting influence upon Chinese philosophy by taking the beginnings of individualism we find in Confucianism and pushing them farther than before.
While Yangzi did not create a concrete school of philosophy, it’s suspected that his ideas wound up in all manner of different philosophies. It’s likely that later Mohism eventually absorbed the focus on the individual, and that may be why the later Mohists wound up at a more individualistic perspective. Song Xing is suspected example of this blending, emphasizing Mohist pacifism while also focusing on the psychological aspects of a person.⁴⁹
Yangism would also become deeply absorbed into Daoism, especially through Zhuangzi who may have been a Yangist before modifying or developing his own views. This connection with Daoism is a connection that will be pursued further, and is the reason why Yangzi is sometimes anachronistically labeled a Daoist.⁵⁰
The Daoist-Yangist connection would prove a fruitful area, as in 400–600 C.E. when neo-Daoism and popular Daoist movements fostered innovation, leading to works such as the Liezi which, despite its likely inauthenticity, injects hedonism into the Daoist imagination.⁵¹ It also appears that this hedonism is connected to the neo-Daoist reach towards genuine Anarchy. Whether or not the neo-Daoists grasped or missed Anarchy is to be answered later in this series.
And finally, their connection would also result in the development of a Utopian story: the Peach Blossom Spring. This Utopia would animate the minds of Chinese popular resistance movements through and up to now, pointing towards a stateless, maybe even anarchic vision of the world.
Furthermore, the influence of Yangism upon the Confucians is also very important. The idea of xing or nature was readily adopted into Confucianism, becoming a core argument within the Mencius.⁵² This influence upon Mencius would also take deeper roots when the Neo-Confucian revival occurred, leading to the development of a Libertine Confucianism that considered the role of the self in society, along with a hedonist philosophy when it came to sex and sexuality. It would eventually also become a way for the early Chinese anarchists to grasp Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid and to use Social Darwinism against itself in their age.⁵³
Thus is the influence Yangzi, the first individualist of China. His ideas were and still are the gateway to individualism and anarchy.
Conclusion: Mozi and Yangzi, a Long Legacy
Mozi and Yangzi’s ideas came at such an early time in the Chinese philosophical consciousness, that their influence was nearly forgotten, despite their importance.
It should be remembered that Confucianism, like Mohism and Yangism, was not a “successful” philosophy in its early days. Confucius himself did not convince any ruler to adopt his ideas, and in his death Mohism and Yangism had become its greatest competitors.
It is an irony that Confucianism would last in the minds of Chinese thought over Mohism or Yangism. But one reason may be that the ideas of these two thinkers were so important that all tendencies at the time strove to incorporate their views and by the time of the early empires there was no need to attribute these ideas to their founders.
We began this piece with Mencius, and so too shall it end with him. Mencius, despite his hate for the Mohists and Yangists, wound up taking their ideas and twisting them in a Confucian way. From the Mohists, he took Jian’ai and turned it into what we now call bo’ai (博愛). This term essentially means the same as jian’ai, with bo (博) meaning broad or extensive, and ai (愛) meaning love. However, its distinction is rather than being impartial, that one begins with familial love and extends this love towards others through engaging in practices of ritual. It would become deeply ingrained into the Confucian conscience, such that Anarchist Kotoku Shusui (who had Confucian training) used the term in his translations.⁵⁴ And it is a concept that even prior to the modern age took on the Confucian meaning of a love for all humans, regardless of their relationships and position in society, perhaps best understood as an aspiration to proto-equality.
And from the Yangists, Mencius also displays a focus on the internal and psychological thought of his subject, conveyed as a concern over one’s “nature” a concept that was imported from Yangzi. Offering greater room to the individual, Mencius’s ideas were that much more important because of Yangzi and Mozi.
Next Time: Centering the Dao
The story so far of Chinese philosophy is one of the oscillation between collectivism and individualism. On the collectivist side have been the Militarists and Mohists. For individualists, Confucius, Mencius, and Yangzi. For our next topic, we will begin a foray into Daoism, beginning with the long praised Daodejing and see where it falls on this continuum, and just how exactly influential it is for Anarchy in China.
Diving deeper into Daoism, we will trace the myriad of influences upon it, such as the Agriculturalists, and the constellation of influences it has left upon Buddhism, Confucianism, and Anarchism. In some ways, this will be the start of the real meat of the story, of the greatest force of Anarchy that has operated for over 2000 years.
Footnotes
[1]: An extensive study on Mohist activism has recently been published, and is drawn upon extensively for this piece — see Grassroots Activism of Ancient China by Hung-Yok Ip
[2]: While I disagree with Yangzi’s characterization as the origin of Human Rights in China, this argument has been made. In particular, this characterization is a product of modern China, when extensive contact with Western ideas like liberty and human values had become parlance. For a discussion on Liang Qichao’s views on Yangzi and Human Rights, see The Many Lives of Yang Zhu, edited by Carine Defoort and Ting-mien Lee, Chapter 9 by Xiaowei Zhang.
[3]: From Ian Johnston’s The Complete Mozi 35, 36, and 37 are appropriately named Against Fate I, II, III respectively. From here on out, every reference to the Mozi will be from Ian Johnston’s translation, unless otherwise stated.
[4]: Mozi 39.5 and 39.6 makes it clear that the Mohists admire those who innovate. Confucius focuses more on Kings Yao and Shun, who are noted Sage Kings who were especially filial. I should emphasize that these are tendencies, not strict divisions. The Mozi also discusses Yao and Shun in a positive light. Their differences were over the reasoning.
[5]: See Chapter 4 in Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy by Bryan W. Van Norden and Chapter 4 in An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy by Karyn Lai for a deeper discussion on Mohist consequentialism.
[6]: For the Mohist critique of funerals, see Mozi 25, titled Moderation in Funerals III. Their critique of music can also be found in Mozi 32, titled Condemning Music I. While these critiques may seem extreme to us, the Mozi is arguing against the context of aristocratic Chinese rituals. From the view of the Mohists, who were largely lower class, they saw the excessive and elaborate funeral processions and music performances bitterly as taking away their food. While the lower classes were being sent to war en masse and dying in droves, the aristocrats were throwing feasts over their dead. Music too, was not merely background music, but an important religious component, and often done in ornate situations that were extraordinarily expensive. With such an association, the Mohist critique of music and funerals are thus harsh. However, given they do not completely argue for these institutions’ destruction in the chapters of the Mozi we have, it seems likely they are against funerals and music as a whole.
The Mohist critique of war can be found in Mozi 17, 18, 19, titled Condemning Offensive Warfare I, II, III.
[7]: Grassroots Activism of Ancient China Chapter 5 has an extensive discussion of Mohist activist praxis, including their military defense of cities and their debate with rulers, which we would likely recognize as lobbying today. The entire last portion of the Mozi is called Defense of a City which has 20 chapters dedicated to it, though many have been lost. Of those that remain, we see evidence of a deeply disciplined and experienced tradition of siege defense.
[8]: Mozi 8, 9, 10 are titled Exalting Worthiness I, II, III respectively. The topic of these chapters constitutes the bulk of the Mohist proposals towards bureaucracy and meritocracy. These too would constitute a radical critique of the aristocracy given that they are proposing merit as opposed to bloodline as a justification for giving someone a position. However, this position is also in ways related to or descended from the Militarist tradition detailed in Part I. The Mohists were military generals, and must have been keenly aware that having trained and experienced leaders in command were better than bumbling or “noble” aristocrats in charge, such as the infamous Duke Xiang of Song (宋襄公). Whereas in the Spring and Autumn period, generals were often aristocrats who upheld a sort of honor code in battle, by the time of the Mohists in the Warring States, war was an attritional affair of infantry against infantry, where the losing side was faced with existential destruction. This created a pressure that encouraged generalship and meritocracy as a result, which is why the Mohists propose meritocracy here. It is an outgrowth of the increasing warfare that dominated their age.
[9]: Wolfgang Bauer’s China and the Search for Happiness is an example of such a view of the Mohists, on page 27.
[10]: Heaven (Tian, 天) is not a location nor an anthropomorphic God. Heaven is the sum total of might and divinity that was perceived to be located in the sky, and is nature itself. There is a discussion of Mohist religiosity in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on Mohism
[11]: See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on Mohism for a discussion of the factors leading to Mohist decline in the Han dynasty. A.C. Graham’s Disputers of the Tao also has a discussion in page 34. The two relevant theories are that the Mohists did not remain distinctive after other traditions took their ideas, leading them to fall into obscurity, and because their importance as siege engineers declined after the creation of the Qin and Han empires.
[12]: Ian Johnston’s Mozi, the Complete Translation has a discussion in his chapter also titled Mo Zi — The Man. Ip also discusses this in Chapter 3 of Grassroots Activism of Ancient China, section titled Shi of Base Origins? and gives a more updated overview of this topic than Johnston, who maintains that the historical Mozi was likely a Shi and not from the lower artisan class (工, gong). I personally am more partial to Johnston’s view.
[13]: Mozi 49.11 contains anthropological information of Mozi’s life. It is as follows:
There was a man from Lu who sent his son to study with Master Mo Zi. His son died in battle and the father was angry with Master Mo Zi. Master Mo Zi said: “You wished your son to study with me. Now, his studies complete, he fights in a battle and dies, and you are angry with me. This is like wishing to sell grain and being angry when it is sold. How is this not perverse?”
Mozi 50 is a famous dialogue that shows the lengths Mozi and the Mohists went to defend cities. The relevant portions shall be copied below:
Gongshu Pan constructed cloud ladder equipment for Chu and, having completed it, was about to use it to attack Song. When Master Mo Zi heard of this, he set out from Qi and travelled for ten days and ten nights to reach Ying where he met with Gongshu Pan …
[Mozi said] From the northern region, I heard that you were making cloud ladders and were about to attack Song. What crime is Song guilty of? The kingdom of Jing (Chu) has an excess of land but not enough people. To kill what there is not enough of in the struggle for what there is an excess of cannot be wise. To attack Song when it has committed no crime cannot be said to be benevolent …
Gongshu Pan conceded. Master Mo Zi said: “This being so, why do you not stop?” Gongshu Pan replied: “I cannot. I have already spoken of it to the king.” Master Mo Zi said: “Why not let me meet with the king.” Gongshu Pan agreed.
Master Mo Zi met with the king and said: “Suppose now there is a man who casts aside his own decorated sedan and wishes to steal a broken-down carriage which his neighbour has; who casts aside his own embroidered coat and wishes to steal a short jacket of coarse cloth which his neighbour has; who casts aside his own grain and meat and wishes to steal chaff and dregs which his neighbour has. What sort of man would this be?” The king replied: “He would certainly be a pathological thief…”
[Mozi said] “In my view, the great King will certainly damage righteousness, but will not achieve anything.” The King replied: “That is all very well. However, Gongshu Pan has already prepared the cloud ladders for me so I must take Song…”
Thereupon he (Mo Zi) went to see Gongshu Pan. Master Mo Zi took off his belt and made it a city wall. With little sticks he made weapons. Gongshu Pan devised nine different strategies for attacking the city, but nine times Master Mo Zi repulsed him. Gongshu Pan used all his machines for attack, whereas Master Mo Zi’s methods of defence were by no means exhausted. Gongshu Pan submitted, but said: “I know how I can oppose you but I will not say.” Master Mo Zi also said: “I know the way in which you would oppose me but I will not say.” The King of Chu asked him his reason. Master Mo Zi said: “Gongshu Zi’s idea is just to have me killed, [thinking that] if I am killed, Song would not be able to defend itself and could be [successfully] attacked. However, my disciple Qin Guli and three hundred such men have already prepared my machines of defence and are on the walls of Song awaiting the attack from Chu. Although you kill me, you will not be able to overcome [their defence].” The King said: “Very well! I now wish not to attack Song.” [emphasis mine]
[14]: This is an instance where translation will always result in a debate. Every concise way to translate 兼愛 into English will result in distorted connotations. The presence of 愛 (ai) which most literally translated means love in English doesn’t quite cover the materialistic connotations of this word in Classical Chinese, given how abstract the term love has become in English. The character 兼 is even more contentious. Attempts to translate this character include Universal, Non-discriminatory, Impartial, and Inclusive. No matter how this term is translated in English, we will always miss the full picture.
[15]: Mencius 3A.5 has a dialogue between a Mohist and Mencius, wherein Mencius mocks the idea of Inclusive Love.
[16]: From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on Mohism:
Confucianism owes an unacknowledged debt to Mohism for its notion of comprehensive moral concern, as reflected, for instance, in Mencius’s doctrine of extending our natural concern for kin so that it reaches everyone. The phrase “inclusive care” begins to appear in Confucian texts toward the end of the Warring States era — a late passage in the Xunzi refers to “comprehensive benefit and inclusive care” (Book 25) — and by the Han dynasty, we find the Confucian Gongsun Hong explaining the virtue of ren (benevolence) in explicitly Mohist terms, as “extending benefit and eliminating harm, inclusively caring without partiality” (Han Shu, Vol. 58).
There is also an essay from Han Yu that discusses Mohism quite favorably and looks at Confucian ideas that are examples of Universal Love. See Ian Johnston’s Mozi, the Complete Translation in the section titled Han Yu’s Essay.
Mencius discusses extending love with a ruler in Mencius 5A.7. As far as I recall, and from the literature that I’ve reviewed, no such mentions of love beyond one’s kin and elders is discussed in the Analects.
[17]: If you go look at research on the Mohists further back than a decade, you will see some people focusing on the debate between Mohist Inclusive Care and Confucian Graded Love. This is largely considered outdated now due to careful studies of the whole Mozi which indicates that they largely agreed on most points, but disagreed on the role of ritual. See Jian ai and the Mohist attack of Early Confucianism by Wai Wai Chiu. One relevant portion from Chiu is copied below:
Actually, when Mozi himself discusses the shortcomings of Confucians, he does not mention the doctrine of discrimination. Besides, in the chapters devoted to the criticism of Confucianism, such as Moderation in Funerals and Against the Confucians, the text does not mention the contrast between jian ai and discrimination, but instead focus on the problem of Confucian ritual…It is reasonable to say that Mohists are more critical of Confucian ritual rather than Confucian benevolence.
[18]: There’s also newer research that indicates there is a disagreement over the willingness to go to war as well. It may be that Mencius sees war as a matter of pragmatism, while Mozi and the Mohists viewed war as corruption of sagely ideals. The arguments between them are very niche and too complicated to detail here, but Chapter 2 of The Many Lives of Yang Zhu dives into this new area of research.
[19]: Mozi 39.5 and 39.6 in particular directly respond to the Confucians by quoting the Analects. Copied below is 39.6:
[Confucians] also say: “The gentleman follows but does not create.” I say in reply: “Among the ancients, Yi created the bow, Yu created armour, Xi Zhong created the cart and Craftsman Chui created the boat.iv In this case, then, are the tanners, armourers, cart-makers and carpenters of the present time all gentlemen, and Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong and Craftsman Chui all petty men? Moreover, someone must have created what the follower follows. This being so, then, is to follow in all cases the way of the petty man?”
[20]: Again see Jian ai and the Mohist attack of Early Confucianism.
[21]: I very rarely see discussions of Mohist Inclusive Care framed as Mutual Aid. The only time I’ve seen it is in Jacques Gernet’s A History of Chinese Civilization page 88, and passingly in Wolfgang Bauer’s China and the Search for Happiness on page 27.
[22]: See Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy page 56.
[23]: The organization of the Mohists are what we consider a cadre. Its members were all Mohists, and they were all trained and held to a high level of discipline. There seems to have been some form of defined succession, with a Grandmaster (鉅子, Juzi) that gave orders to be followed over all the locals, though presumably the locals had their own leaders or autonomy given the slow speed orders would have been transmitted across cities in this era. Very predictably to this anarchist, they fractured into several factions each with their own Grandmaster, each sect vying for power over the others. Their reasons for feuding? Over matters of logical reasoning and not muh over anything else, at least according to the Zhuangzi. Sound familiar?
The primary sources for these lie in the Lüshi Chunqiu (吕氏春秋, Master Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals) and Zhuangzi, but translations can be found in A. C. Graham’s Disputers of the Tao (pgs. 35, 42, 44–45). A translation of the Zhuangzi passage can be found in Ian Johnston’s The Complete Mozi, Introduction, “II. The Mohist School.”
[24]: Comparisons to the Panthers or Nation of Islam do not yet exist. However, Grassroots does have a discussion of the Mohist’s propensity towards defense, with a comparison towards Nelson Mandela and the anti-Apartheid movement. See Chapter 7 of Grassroots Activism of Ancient China by Hung-yok Ip.
[25]: Ibid. Chapter 6.
[26]: Mencius 4B.33 is a story of a man’s wife and concubine’s shame towards his behavior, whilst their husband is quite shameless. Their demonstration of shame is the key part that shows Mencius can believe that women have more developed virtue than men.
[27]: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Mohism, section 9 titled “Historical Influence and Decline” discusses this.
[28]: Many Lives of Yang Zhu chapter 4.
[29]: For the time, we know from various other sources that philosophers were known to travel with a retinue of people, as Confucius, Mencius, and Mozi did. If Yangzi was a real person, then given the lack of writings, the only way he could have transmitted his ideas was through some sort of following or companionship with others. One rumor, although it was recorded around 570–580 C.E. almost 900 years after Yangzi would have lived, states
「楊朱之侶，世謂冷腸」
which translated means “Yang Zhu’s companions, the world describes as having cold intestines,” which would corroborate this possibility. This quote can be found in the Yan Family’s Precepts (顏氏家訓, Yanshi jiaxun) in the section 《省事》.
[30]: Analects 14.39, 18.6, and 18.7. More recluses are also described in 18.8. They may be followers of the Agriculturalists (農家), or perhaps a related tendency that eventually morphed into Daoism. But the man in 18.7 seems to me possibly one from the tradition of recluses that may have morphed into Yangism, given his aristocratic background, and his abiding by the elder to younger hierarchy while avoiding the ruler to ruled hierarchy. The recluses in 18.8 may also be closer to the tendency that became Yangism. This may be grasping at straws, however, as the fellow in 18.7 is also very easily able to fit with the other hermits described in 14.39 and 18.6.
[31]: What evidence do I have to support this view? Almost nothing but contextual guesses!
[32]: Many Lives of Yang Zhu pg. 2 lists “Mencius, Zhuangzi 莊子, Han Feizi 韓非子.” We will often use the Mencius description.
[33]: Many Lives of Yang Zhu pg. 38, footnote 6 discusses the various anecdotes available about Yangzi. These include “ ‘lodging in the inn with a pretty and ugly lady’ (Zhuangzi, Han Feizi), ‘lamenting at a crossroads’ (Xunzi, Huannanzi, Lunheng), as ‘the brother of Yang Bu who hit a dog’ (Han Feizi), and the ‘cold intestines’ (冷肠) versus the Mohist ‘hot stomach’ (热腹) (Yanshi jiaxun)”
[34]: Many Lives of Yang Zhu pg. 2 lists “Lüshi chunqiu 呂氏春秋, Huainanzi 淮南子.”
[35]: One can find the contents of this chapter of the Liezi translated here: https://sacred-texts.com/tao/ycgp/index.htm
[36]: Chapter 4 of The Many Lives of Yang Zhu discusses the entire chapter of the Liezi, and recognizes it as part of a historical trend in Medieval China to begin venerating alcoholism, pleasure, sex, and other vices, which can often be found in neo-Daoist works contemporary to the time the Liezi was being compiled/forged.
[37]: Many Lives of Yang Zhu briefly gives a list of the most popular set of these “inferred” Yangist writings on page 2:
The most commonly selected passages occur in Han Feizi 50 “Eminent Learnings” 顯學, in five Lüshi chunqiu chapters (1/2 “Taking Life as Basic” 本生, 1/3 “Valuing the Self ” 重己, 2/2 “Honoring Life” 貴生, 2/3 “Essential Desires” 情欲, and 21/4 “Being Attentive to Aims” 審為) and four Zhuangzi chapters (28 “Yielding the Throne” 讓王, 29 “Robber Zhi” 盜跖, 30 “Discourse on Swords” 說劍, and 31 “Old Fisherman” 漁父)
For a further discussion of one of these inferred writings, see van Norden’s Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy which analyzes the Robber Zhi chapter from the Zhuangzi.
[38]: From the Lüshi Chunqiu (呂氏春秋), under the section 不二 (bu’er), a list of philosophers is given, along with brief descriptions of their ideas. For Yangzi, he is briefly described as
「陽生貴己」
meaning “Yangzi valued the self.”
[39]: From Mencius 3B.14, Mencius himself quotes Yangzi as saying
「楊氏為我，是無君也」
which can be translated to “Master Yang (believes) in being for I, (thus) this disregards the ruler.”
[40]: This argument largely comes from Does Guiji Mean Egoism?: Yang Zhu’s Conception of Self by Ranie Villaver. This quote may be the best explanation:
A helpful image to understand ji as the commanding self is the puppet and its strings. Lo suggests to look at ji as the strings. The puppet moves like a human being when manipulated well by a master puppeteer. ‘Perfect manipulation comes from the restraint applied to the thread; no movements will be amiss’ (p. 261). Thus, to be human (or humaneness) depends on the strings…
[41]: See the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page Individualism in Classical Chinese Thought, which has a section on Yangzi. Erica Brindley who wrote the page has a much more elaborate argument in her book Individualism in Early China. Briefly, she claims:
“It appears that Yangzi’s so-called egoism is founded on a principle of preserving some aspect of one’s self or body over and above anything else. A later author claims that what Yangzi valued was self in and of itself, while others described his thinking in the following way: “Keeping one’s nature whole, preserving one’s genuineness, and not letting things tire one’s form (body) — these Yangzi advocated but Mencius denounced.” In this example, the self to be valued consists in xing, the body, and in “genuineness” — a vague concept that seems to refer to a spiritual ideal — inherent or original to the individual. Based on such a description, Yang Zhu appears to have idealized certain aspects of the self that help define its essence, whether material, spiritual, or both. By insisting on a sharp separation between that which is internal or associated with the person on the one hand, and external things that might tire it on the other, Yang Zhu joins Mencius in basing his ideals on a fundamental inner/outer distinction. However, his recommendation that one keep the self and its aspects free of outside contamination, if accurate, would constitute an even more extreme form of individualism than what we have encountered with Mencius.”
[42]: See Stirner as Hegelian by Lawrence S. Stepelevich. Stepelevich notes that Stirner “attended Hegel’s lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, the History of Philosophy, and, in the winter of 1827, his lectures on the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit.” A cursory glance at the table of contents recorded in Hegel’s History of Philosophy in Gutenberg reveals a section on “Oriental Philosophy,” with a section on Daoism (“The Sect of the Tao-See”) and a section on Buddhism (“The Philosophy of Gotama and Canade”). While what we have of this series of lectures was not the exact version that Stirner sat in on, that this section exists indicates that it is likely that the version Stirner did listen to contained similar sections.
[43]: I am referring to the much better translation by Wolfi Landstreicher, which is titled The Unique and Its Property. Any mention of the translator, must, unfortunately, come with the mention of this person’s questionable views on pedophilia. One thing some ‘egoists’ forget seems to be that if someone does something, another egoist can call them out on it, or just punch them in the fucking face if its reprehensible to them, no ‘sacred’ morality needed.
[44]: It’s almost a taboo to quote Stirner, as quotes from him often lend themselves to misunderstanding due to the sarcastic and facetious writing style. I would recommend any who wish to read Stirner to do the whole book, and not merely understand him through these measly quotes.
The Unique and Its Property, Part II: I, The Owner, My Intercourse:
Which of the two is closer to my heart, the welfare of the family or my own welfare? In many cases the two go peacefully together, and the benefit of the family is equally mine and vice versa. Then it can be hard to decide whether I am thinking selfishly or for the general benefit
[45]: The Unique and Its Property, Part II: I, The Owner, My Power:
States last only so long as there is a ruling will and this ruling will is considered synonymous with one’s own will. The lord’s will is — law. What good are your laws to you when no one follows them; what good your commands, when no one lets himself be commanded? The state cannot give up its claim to determine the individual’s will, to speculate and count on this. For the state, it is absolutely necessary that no one have a will of his own; if someone had one, the state would have to exclude (imprison, banish, etc.) this one; if everyone had one, they would do away with the state. The state is not thinkable without domination and slavery (subjection); because the state must will to be the lord of all that it contains, and this will is called the “will of the state.”
Whoever has to count on the lack of will in others in order to exist is a shoddy product of these others, as the master is a shoddy product of the slave. If servility ceased, it would be all over for lordship.
My own will is the destroyer of the state; the latter therefore denounces it as “self-will…”
[46]: The Unique and Its Property, Part II: I, The Owner, My Self Enjoyment:
“No thought is sacred, since no thought counts as “devotions”; no feeling is sacred (no sacred feeling of friendship, mother’s feelings, etc.), no belief is sacred. They are all alienable, my alienable property, and will be destroyed, as they are created, by me.”
[47]: The Unique and Its Property, Part II: I, The Owner, My Self Enjoyment:
“To me, objects are only material that I consume. Wherever I reach out my hand I grasp a truth, which I prepare for myself. The truth is assured to me, and I don’t need to long for it. To do the truth a service is never my intention. To me it is just nourishment for my thinking head, like the potato for my digesting stomach, or the friend for my convivial heart.”
[48]: See the chapter Struggling between Tradition and Modernity: Liang Qichao’s Portrayal of Yang Zhu in the Early Twentieth Century by Xiaowei Wang in the Many Lives of Yang Zhu. I’m not very convinced this is an “authentic” depiction of Yang Zhu, but it is an interesting as a modern remake of Yang Zhu’s ideas.
[49]: Christopher Rand in Military Thought in Early China agrees with Feng Youlan when he says “[Song Xing] combined the ideas of Mozi, and also of Yang Zhu, and gave them a psychological basis” on page 123.
[50]: There’s a whole bundle of issues with the term Daoism and the ideas we typically lump under Daoism. This will be discussed further in the next part, but it is an anachronism to even use the term Daoism for the era that this piece centers on. Daoism as a term would be coined hundreds of years later.
[51]: See the chapter Deconstructing “Hedonism”: Understanding Yang Zhu in the Liezi by Erica Brindley in the Many Lives of Yang Zhu.
[52]: See pg. 88–91 of Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy by Bryan van Norden. Also see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Mencius in the section Mencius and His Philosophical Opponents.
[53]: Social Darwinism and Social Darwinist language was in vogue at the time Anarchism arrived in China. As such, a reliance on the idea of nature, in my preliminary glance at the language used, seems to have caused some resonance within the Chinese Anarchist movement. Examples can be found in the famous Tianyibao (天義報), an Anarchist newspaper contributed to by notable Chinese anarchists Liu Shipei and He Zhen.
[54]: See Monster of the Twentieth Century by Robert Thomas Tierney, pg. 68. Kotoku was a noted translator and later turned Anarchist. He chose to translate fraternité as haku’ai (bo’ai, 博愛).
Written by 1/0
SEE MY; Chinese Anarchist Author Ba Jin RIP
