BothAndBlog Forum

Confucianism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/910547



By the way, though I'm a native-born Irish American, I believe in North American High Toryism instead of American conservatism. That's partly why Confucianism interests me. I suggest "American conservatism" may be an oxymoron because it seems to be Locke's classical liberalism. — BillMcEnaney

Disclaimer : not an expert on any of these socio-political concepts. But for clarification of terms :

High Toryism has been described by Andrew Heywood as neo-feudalist in its preference for a traditional hierarchical and patriarchal society over modern freedom and equality,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tory

How close are Confucian ideas to the American conservatism of our day?
One thing, too, that I should point out is that conservatism in the West is often confused with libertarianism, because both tend to look very skeptically at the state. One could never confuse a Confucian with a libertarian, because Confucianism is about holding office, being a bureaucrat, managing the evolution of the social organism. It had no place for liberty or the individual or the rule of law.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/ ... haves.html

Classical liberalism :
Considered the Father of Liberalism, John Locke wrote two treatises on government attacking absolute monarchy and supporting a more limited view of government. While his conception of liberalism is explicitly based on a theology many people would dispute, his reasoning has been applied in secular conditions to great success.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/classical ... explained/

↪Gnomon
Sure. But I was interested in how the OP was using these terms.

Terms like conservative and libertarian and right wing seem almost meaningless these days. And we can be sure that almost any Western government's chief allegiance is not to the people but to corporations and banks. What was Gore Vidal's salient quote? "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings." — Tom Storm

Me too. Being apolitical by nature, I wasn't familiar with the notion of American "High Toryism" or Western "Confucianism. So, I looked-up those terms.

In any case, the "fake news" media seem to be reporting a rebound trend away from chaotic Democracy toward orderly Autocracy. They envision a popular swing in favor of strong-man Right-wing leaders in US and Europe. I get the impression that modern politics historically oscillates between Right & Left extremes. But generally, the overall effect has been somewhere in the middle. Now though, Fascism has had almost four generations to shed its "evil" connotations, and to look "heroic" in hindsight.

In practice, the "Property Party" seems to support whichever candidate best serves their interest as Feudal Lords. I guess that us landless serfs in the hinterlands are best advised to keep our heads down as the sword-wielding landlords duke it out in the Capitalist capitals. May the best Oligarch win.

↪Gnomon
Maybe feudalism has some good points. For example, a feudal lord lived with people in a community and could explain their needs and concerns to the king. The lord wasn't some politician who held an occasional town meeting to listen to constituents. He knew them because his mom was in their neighborhood. So, he wasn't a power-hungry politician. — BillMcEnaney

True, but your description sounds like a romantic fairytale version of history : an age of fatherly kings, and courtly knights, and fair maidens, and rustic ignorant peasants. But scientific history is less rosy. Some have described Feudalism as a "Protection Racket". In recent history, something similar to European Feudalism*1 was being established by Hitler in Germany to implement his dream of a Third Reich. At the same time in Asia, the semi-divine Japanese Emperor ruled over a feudal empire of Samurai lords, fair maidens, and millions of contented land-bound peasants. And both attempted to impose their idyllic system of governance upon neighboring countries by military force. But no one could tell the Fuhrer or Heavenly Sovereign that trying to emulate Alexander the Great or Genghis Kahn in the 20th century was not a good idea. It took a distant liberal democratic nation to say "No!" with an atomic bomb.

On the positive side, Feudalism was a stable pragmatic system of land management and government for thousands of years all around the world. In a reality where the fastest mode of communication was a horse & rider, a rigid inherited or appointed hierarchy of lords & vassals & powerless serfs, simply worked. But in order for Feudalism to work in the 21st century, it would have to banish most modern education & technology & the middle class. Fast communication would tend to undermine the absolute authority of a remote king, and his hierarchy of authority. The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones stories describe a romantic but brutal side of top-down Feudalism.

However, maybe you can devise an updated system of government that incorporates the best points of all past systems, and avoids the worst : the stability of Feudalism without the oppression, and the freedom of Democracy without the chaotic politics.


*1. National Feudalism :
https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/National_F