The reason I discuss the power of position is because of. Mediocre leaders. These mediocre rulers at best don`t reach the level of Yao or Shun [sages], and at worst, they don`t behave like [arch-tyrants] Jie or Zhou. If they respect the law and rely on the power of their position, there will be order; But if they give up the power of their position and turn their backs on the law, there will be disorder. Now, if you give up the power of position, turn your back on the law and wait for a Yao or a Shun, then when a Yao or Shun comes, there will indeed be order, but it will only be a generation of order in a thousand generations of disorder. Nevertheless, if anyone devotes his entire discourse to the sufficiency of the doctrine of position to govern all that is under heaven, the limits of his wisdom must be very narrow. [154] “The legalism of Li Si`s time was a growing complex of ideas. It is not known when legalism was considered an intellectual faction, comparable to well-defined schools such as Confucianism and Mohism, but it is very likely that it was not until the middle of the third century that individuals brought together the various currents recognized as legalistic thought. It may be that only the greatest of all legalistic texts was written in the 240s BC. A.D., that this group of ideas was considered a coherent ideology. This work was written by a prince of the state of Han, a man known as Han Feizi. /+/ The last sentence presents the logic behind Shang Yang`s state-building model.
If a radical restructuring of society was legitimate in the past, it is also legitimate in the present. In the current situation where people “know”, a powerful state capable of forcing its subjects is the only viable solution. Lord Shang`s book (but not Han Feizi) has raised the possibility that in the future the need for excessive coercion will end and a softer, morally motivated political structure will develop, but these utopian digressions are of secondary importance in the text (Pines 2013a). What matters is the bottom line: radical reforms were inevitable in the past; And they are inevitable in the present. Teaching people to “sing and sing about war” could easily refer to military indoctrination as we see in other countries that have used mass armies. But Lord Shang`s book never talks about, for example. the cult of the martial spirit, the dehumanization of the enemy, the identification of martial life with masculinity and similar means used elsewhere in militarist education. On the contrary, for Shang Yang and other contributors to “his” book, “teaching” simply means people`s internalization of the fact that the only way to satisfy their desires for wealth and glory is to excel in war. Hence the war, which elsewhere in the book is openly associated with what people hate (Shang jun shu 18:108; Lord Shang 18:2) becomes the center of people`s aspirations.
“Teaching” is not a question of ideological indoctrination; It is just a matter of deliberate adherence to government policy. Han Fei saw Xing-Ming as an essential part of autocracy and said, “In the way of accepting unity, names are of primary importance. When the names are put in order, things are settled; If they go wrong, things are not corrected. [209] He points out that this system, originally developed by Shen Buhai, allowed for the development of uniformity of language,[95] functions could be strictly defined to prevent conflict and corruption, and that objective rules (Fa) could be established that were impervious to dissenting interpretations judged solely on their effectiveness. [106] By reducing the options to one, the discussion of “the right way to govern” could be eliminated. Whatever the situation (Shih) brings, this is the right Dao. [14]: 367, 370-372 This proposal amounts to a “nationalization” of intellectual activity. Han Fei does not fundamentally deny that some of the rival doctrines could benefit the state; It only denies its defenders the right to develop and elaborate their views independently of the state. Han Fei has no illusions about his rivals: intellectuals can only pursue their ideas to the extent that they are part of the state-imposed system of power, otherwise their ideas will be “cut off”. Elsewhere, he concludes: Such an excess of laws was created that, although each law was simple and clear in itself, a contradictory law could always be found. Submission to one law easily brought one person into conflict with another, so there were always reasons to accuse almost everyone, regardless of social position, of violating one of them.
The officer and his directors had ultimate authority to choose which laws should be prosecuted and when prosecutions should be stopped because one law was violated by another; In this way, they retained control of their subordinates. Cao Cao, commander of the cavalry during the Yellow Turban Rebellion, then colonel of the Western Garden Army around 188,[346] was governor of Yan Province (present-day western Shandong and eastern Henan) in 196 when he brought the Luoyang Emperor to his headquarters in Xuchang. [347] [348] Yuan Shu declared his own Zhong (仲朝) dynasty in 197 AD, but this courageous gesture earned him the desertion of many of his followers and died penniless after trying to offer his title to Yuan Shao. [348] More power after defeating Gongsun Zan (d. 199), Yuan Shao regretted not having seized the emperor when he had the opportunity and decided to take action against Cao. [347] The confrontation culminated in Cao Cao`s victory at the Battle of Guandu in 200 AD, which forced Yuan to withdraw to his territory. [349] After Yuan Shao`s death in 202, his sons disputed his inheritance, allowing Cao Cao to eliminate Yuan Tan (173-205) and push his brothers Yuan Shang and Yuan Xi to seek refuge with the Wuhuan. [350] Cao Cao maintained his supremacy over the northeast when he defeated the Wuhuan led by Tadun at the Battle of White Wolf Mountain in 207 AD; The Yuan brothers fled to Gongsun Kang (died 221) in Liaodong, but he killed them and sent their heads to Cao Cao for submission. [351] After Emperor Huan`s death, at the insistence of Grand Master (太傅) Chen Fan (陳蕃) (died 168), Dou Wu was brought before the court in June 168. a monument in which he denounced the chief eunuchs as corrupt and called for their execution, but Empress Dowager Dou rejected the proposal. [315] This was followed by a monument presented by Chen Fan to the heads of Hou Lan (d. 172 AD) and Cao Jie (d.
181 AD), and when this was also rejected, Dou Wu filed a formal lawsuit that could not be ignored by the court. [316] When Shan Bing, a eunuch collaborator of Chen and Dou, received a forced confession from another eunuch that Cao Jie and Wang Fu (王甫) had planned a betrayal, he prepared another devastating written monument on the night of October 24-25, which the opposing eunuchs secretly opened and read. [316] Cao Jie armed Emperor Ling with a sword and hid him with his nurse, while Wang Fu had Shan Bing killed and Empress Dowager Dou imprisoned so that the eunuchs could use the authority of his seal.[316] [317] Legalism was discredited by later dynasties and ceased to be an independent school of thought. However, ancient and modern Confucian observers of Chinese politics have argued that some legalistic ideas have merged with mainstream Confucianism and still play a role in government. The philosophy of imperial China can be described externally as Confucianism (along with Buddhism during the Sui and Tang dynasties) and legalism within (儒表法裏). Therefore, my teaching is that those who seek advantages gain them nowhere else but in tillage, and those who want to avoid evil escape nowhere else but in war. Within the borders, everyone in the people devotes himself first to agriculture and war, and only then receives what he wants. Although the area is small, grain is abundant, and although there are few people, the army is powerful. Those who are able to implement these two within borders will complete the path of hegemony and monarch. (Shang jun shu 25:139; Book of Lord Shang 25:5) Among men, everyone acts for himself.
If you try to change them and get them to act for you, then there will be no one you can reach and employ. In situations where people are unable to act in their own self-interest, the above will not employ them. Employ people for their own [interests], do not employ them for your good; then there will be no one you cannot use (Shenzi, 24-25; Harris, 2016: 112).