Unfortunately, since modern times, Confucianism has been treated as a scapegoat for China's backwardness and failure, thrown into the historical garbage heap amidst the clamor to "overthrow the Confucian family." The most intense criticism of Confucianism comes from Mr. Lu Xun's theory of "cannibalism." In "A Madman's Diary," he wrote: "I opened the history book and checked, but this history has no dates; every page is crookedly written with the words 'benevolence, righteousness, morality.' I couldn't sleep, so I carefully looked at it all night, and only from the gaps between the words did I see that the whole book was written with two words: 'cannibalism!'"
From the perspective of laborers, I also agree that Chinese history is a history of "cannibalism." The problem is that Mr. Lu Xun should also be able to point out that Western history is also a history of "cannibalism." "When the great way is abandoned, there is benevolence and righteousness." The entire history of Eastern and Western civilizations to date is a history of cannibalism! A history where exploitation and oppression become increasingly severe, where centralized authoritarianism deepens, where freedom and equality are increasingly lost, and where the human rights of the poor are less than the rights of the rich's dogs and cats! Cannibalism and being eaten are fundamental characteristics of the "civilized society" that emerged with private ownership. The difference between the East and the West lies in the different methods of cannibalism, the different theoretical systems that explain its legitimacy, and thus the varying degrees of cannibalism. If we do not point out the cannibalistic nature of human civilization history, that is, its exploitative and oppressive nature, and do not point out that war and trade, power and capital, swords and currency are the two basic mechanisms of cannibalism, then unilaterally pointing out the cannibalistic nature of Chinese history will ultimately lead to a one-sided denial of Chinese history and an affirmation of Western history, creating a sense of national inferiority and nihilism, helping the West to "consume" China!
Why is the history of civilization in both the East and the West a history of exploitation and oppression? Because the deepest historical driving force is human self-interest. Pursuing one's own interests, family interests, tribal interests, and national interests inevitably leads to the social class differentiation of the weak being preyed upon by the strong. It is precisely self-interest that allows private ownership to emerge and be universally recognized. It is self-interest that drives war and trade. Self-interest promotes both technological progress and polarization; it promotes economic prosperity while also promoting centralized authoritarianism. We must admit that "cannibalism" and "technological progress" are precisely two aspects of the same historical process, unified by human self-interest. Adam Smith emphasized the aspect of the market promoting technological progress, while Mr. Lu Xun probably saw the exploitative and oppressive nature of the market's "collecting three to five dou more." Unfortunately, from then on, people only looked at the exploitative and oppressive nature of Chinese history; they only looked at the progressive nature of Western history, resulting in a strong sense of national inferiority among the Chinese. In fact, in terms of technological progress and social prosperity, Chinese history surpassed the West for a considerable period; in terms of exploitation and oppression, the beginning of modern Western history was marked by bloody conquests, killings, and enslavement, the scale and cruelty of which far exceeded that of China! What about Western ancient history? When the Roman Empire rose, the tribes around the Mediterranean were either exterminated or enslaved, or became accomplices of the Romans. During the peaceful times of the Roman Empire, Emperor Nero set fire to Rome for pleasure, and his despotism and barbarism far surpassed that of the tyrants of the Xia and Shang dynasties! Therefore, if we must talk about a history of cannibalism, then Chinese history is probably milder than that of the West; China has sustainable cannibalism, while the West has one-time cannibalism! If China's exploitation and oppression were not relatively sustainable, it would have been impossible for the dynasties of China to last for two or three hundred years on this vast land before collapsing!
Strictly speaking, Confucius's ideal society of great harmony, Jesus's kingdom of heaven, and the Buddhist paradise all hope to eliminate exploitation and oppression, and in this regard, there is no fundamental difference from Marx's envisioned communist society. However, Confucius acknowledged the reality that "when the great way is hidden, the world becomes a family," and under the premise that human self-interest cannot undergo significant change, he could only seek a compromise, pursue a moderately prosperous society, acknowledge the existence of social division of labor and hierarchy, but demand "benevolent rulers and respectful subjects," advocating for benevolence, righteousness, and morality. This at least hopes to suppress the degree of exploitation and oppression, and even contains the hope of eliminating exploitation and oppression. The so-called "ruler" in Confucius's view is actually the party that holds the dominant power in social contradictions. The supplier when demand exceeds supply, the teacher in the teacher-student relationship, the father in the father-son relationship, the superior in the superior-subordinate relationship, the employer in the labor-capital relationship (in traditional Chinese medicine, there is also the term "ruler medicine," referring to the one medicine that plays a major role), all are the parties that hold the dominant power in social contradictions, that is, the ruling side. Social contradictions are everywhere; there is always a distinction between the dominant and the dominated, that is, there are primary and secondary contradictions, and distinctions between the main and secondary aspects of contradictions. If everywhere is a dominant party exploiting the dominated party using its own advantages, then "the weak are preyed upon by the strong" will appear in every corner of society. In this sense, Confucius's advocacy of "benevolent rulers and respectful subjects" precisely requires that in every pair of social contradictions, the dominant side should treat the dominated side with kindness and compassion, rather than harshly and cruelly exploiting and utilizing its dominant power advantage. Only in this way can society truly be considered civilized, and there can be true morality and genuine love among humanity. In fact, the principle of the Paris Commune envisioned by Marx requires public servants to receive an average salary, which actually demands "benevolent rulers." Mao Zedong often emphasized that there are no bad masses, only bad leaders. Translated into Confucius's language, it means: if the ruler is benevolent, the subjects will inevitably be respectful. Unfortunately, Confucius did not learn the modern art of language packaging, did not understand how to cater to the psychology of the masses, and did not advocate love, universal love, or compassion in an empty manner, but rather designed specific behavioral norms targeting the existence of the dominant and dominated relationships. As a result, he was distorted, castrated, and mocked by those shallow and vulgar individuals who raised the banner of universal love while tightly holding onto their wallets and power.
In other words, Confucius's teachings actually hope to make "good" the main driving force of historical progress, reducing the degree of exploitation and oppression brought about by self-interest. Confucius's historical view is probably one of the struggle between good and evil. This view of history, which promotes good and lashes out at evil, objectively encourages people to respect morality and promote righteousness, thereby reducing the degree of violence, fraud, exploitation, and oppression. However, the modern Western view of history is that "evil is the lever of historical progress." Mandeville, Smith, Locke, Hegel, and Marx are all expounders of this view of history. Marx further summarized this view of historical progress driven by evil as the materialist view of history. It is under this historical view that exploitation, oppression, enslavement, killing, and plunder have all become the driving forces of historical progress, objectively deepening the degree of exploitation and oppression in Western society. This is the inherent paradox of Marx's theory. If the power of evil can promote historical progress, leading history from capitalism to communism, then what is the purpose of the ideals, beliefs, and theories of communism? If the extermination of indigenous Americans, the enslavement of African blacks, and the plunder of India and China are all the price of historical progress, then on what basis does Marx claim to stand on the side of the exploited and oppressed classes and nations? Furthermore, who welcomes this materialist view of history driven by evil? Is it not the ruling classes of various societies? Who welcomes the view of history of the struggle between good and evil? Is it not the oppressed and exploited classes? Unfortunately, Marxists are likely to believe that the view of history of the struggle between good and evil is an idealist view of history.