Find a flaw

>Mao's foreign policy is basically in line with Imperial China's.
Mao's level of censorship and political headhunting trumped Imperial Chinese.

Not to mention disrespect of ancestors. Hell even Chinese dynasties showed respect to defeated erstwhile dynasties by ennobling the family/survivors of the previous dynasty.

>Both are command economies, with localities specialising in a single good which are redistributed by the central authority,
>Implying an agricultural economy can be a command economy
>Implying Confucianism advocates a "command economy"
>both are essentially run by the civil service,
The Imperial civil service and the CCP are very different entities organized and established in very different ways. Contemporary China has instituted a system similar to the imperial exam system, but that doesn't mean we can just assert that medieval Chinese students cheated like modern Chinese math students do.
>both are philosophical rather than religious,
What do you mean? Confucianism is all about ancestor worship. That's a religious notion. And there are even Marxists who would reject the notion that there is no religious element to Communism. Especially in China.
>and ofc both occupy roughly the same territory.
The only thing you're right about.

First of all, it's wrong. China, at times, was the most advanced civilization in its region, sometimes in the whole world, but not troughout the whole imperial times.

Second of all, even if that were true, it is not really relevant to what I said.

>Mao's foreign policy is basically in line with Imperial China's.
>Mao's foreign policy
>foreign policy
>foreign

Oh and to add: you can't own a fucking knife above 3 -4 inches in modern China without registering it to the government. PRC likes to monopolize armed force/weapons.

Meanwhile Imperial China fucking empowered you to own weapons to help out officials in putting criminals down because the country is too big.

>Second of all, even if that were true, it is not really relevant to what I said.

Yes it is, because the Confucian system was integral to that success. Modern Chinese success is based on an industrial revolution that began a few decades ago.

The PRC treats Sun Yat-sen pretty well, in Taiwan Dr. Sun is seen as the leader of the Chinese gang who robbed the Taiwanese of their Japanese masters Stockholm Syndrome style.

>tfw born too late to be a kamikaze pilot to serve my empire even though I would've been a second-class citizen and treated like shit

jdimsa 2bh

If that were true, confucianism would have remained the official ideology troughout the imperial times, which it did not.

As for the people, confucianist values are still very much vivid, they have just been diluted in what they called the "3 wisdom" alongside with Taoism and Buddism.

But your first statement was incorrect anyway. Imperial China was not always on top of its neighbours.

Yeah, and back in the good old days, the whole of Europe could walk around carrying a fucking sword, or a knife, or whatever weapon they could afford. I don't see where you'r getting at with this.

>confucianism would have remained the official ideology troughout the imperial times, which it did not.
System and ideology are not synonyms. The Confucian system was formally instituted around the turn of the millenium, and it integrated Buddhist and Daoist notions and practices.
>As for the people, confucianist values are still very much vivid, they have just been diluted in what they called the "3 wisdom" alongside with Taoism and Buddism.
Which is exactly what I'm referring to. This kind of thing actually isn't that prevalent today. See Factory Girls by Leslie T. Chang. The attempt to reintroduce Confucian ethics to Chinese society is a recent development that hasn't succeeded yet.
>Imperial China was not always on top of its neighbours.
It was still one of the most successful civilizations on the planet for a very large portion of its history, which has a lot of continuity.

Obviously he was saying that modern and medieval or ancient Chinese states aren't identical, aren't administered in the same way, and enforce and implement their respective monopolies on violence in different ways, or did not acknowledge such monopolies at all (the modern Chinese state being, obviously, one which cares about it).

>millennium
Last millennium* I mean, the one that includes the years between 999 AD and 2001 AD, not the contemporary millennium.

You should talk to actual Chinese to see how much the concept of mariage and familly are important. Most of them still consider these things very seriously.

Marriage and family aren't the entirety of the Confucian system. They're important components of modern capitalism, though, especially in terms of property rights, as anyone who's familiar with Marx and Engels should realize. I'm not even a Marxist.
As I said, read Factory Girls by Chang, specifically the chapter where the author sits in on an ethics class being taught in an industrial city. Compare the things these aspiring secretaries are taught with the virtues that Confucius emphasizes. You won't find much similarity. You'll also find that contemporary Chinese families are far more willing than they were in the past to send their children far away from home to find jobs.

The Great Sage had just the proper amount of ambition. Too little ambition is just as bad as too much.

No, I agree with all that, but I don't think you could say Confucian system has vanished from Chinese society.

The thing you are describing are induced to China's economic and social changes, but they're not symptomatics to a shift in mentalities. People are just trying to get by, even though it means doing things they don't consider to be good ... and even though they are so many migrants workers going far away to find a job, most will come back for New Year, as the tradition dictates.

People are on average, stupid.

>Both are command economies, with localities specialising in a single good which are redistributed by the central authority

>Modern China
>Ancient China
>anything like this claim

Maybe 1970 East China.

>No, I agree with all that, but I don't think you could say Confucian system has vanished from Chinese society.
I keep fucking saying that attempts have been made to reinstitute it. I don't think you're going to deny that the Cultural Revolution took place.
I'm not just talking about "Confucian values" or whatever. Obviously, people didn't lose touch with tradition completely, but it's absurd to insist that modern China and medieval China have the same system of values. Especially the way you're doing it, by implying that filial piety and marriage are all there is to it.
>and even though they are so many migrants workers going far away to find a job, most will come back for New Year, as the tradition dictates.
And a hundred years ago, they would have worked on the farm for most of their lives.

During 30% of Chinese history you are wrong if you mean "cultural production" relative to population.

Today's China is in that 30%.

>but that doesn't mean we can just assert that medieval Chinese students cheated like modern Chinese math students do.

Well both most likely cheated in sinilar amounts.

And don't act like this isn't widespread the world over in lower-tier colleges.

>being an unironic cuckold

>And don't act like this isn't widespread the world over in lower-tier colleges.

We're not talking about lower-tier colleges, we're talking about the Imperial civil service exam.

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

>it's absurd to insist that modern China and medieval China have the same system of values.
I never said that. When it comes to the connections between modern and medieval China exists via traditions, cultures and some general elements of foreign policy.

>And a hundred years ago, they would have worked on the farm for most of their lives.
But they don't leave because they want to, they leave because they have to. And those who want to leave usually do so because they think they have a chance to improve their lifes. I doubt all migrants workers are happy to go away.

>But they don't leave because they want to, they leave because they have to.
Why do you assume that none of them want to move to the city? I've mentioned Chang's book twice ITT already and I'm going to suggest it again.

>doubt all migrants workers are happy to go away.
And I've never claimed they're all "happy" to go, I've suggested that many of them are genuinely interested in attaining material personal success at the expense of their family.

>them are genuinely interested in attaining material personal success at the expense of their family.

There's no "success" in being denied of most of your social rights and spending days and nights hauling steel. They do it because the pay is better and that's all.

I mean, getting better pay is exactly what "material personal success" would be for them. You're just being pedantic at this point. Are you asserting that getting a better wage or moving up in the world of business isn't compatible with personal success, or am I misreading you?

>implying modern china is actually "communism" and not confucianism on meth

>confucianism on meth
You just described the late Qing dynasty, though

If they actually taught confusionism, then it would be fine, instead modern china lacks the traditional upbringing. This made modern china into snobs.

Actually, Confucianism on Meth is Japan and Joseon Korea
>DUDE, CLASS FREEZES, LMAO!

Confucius:
>Do not concern yourself with matters of government unless they are the responsibility of your office.

Aristotle:
>Now any member of the assembly, taken separately, is certainly inferior to the wise man. But the state is made up of many individuals. And as a feast to which all the guests contribute is better than a banquet furnished by a single man, so a multitude is a better judge of many things than any individual.
>governments, which have a regard to the common interest, are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen.
>The many are more incorruptible than the few; they are like the greater quantity of water which is less easily corrupted than a little.

>muh obedience
>muh king
Fuck off, Confucius.

>A Greek City is equal to a Chinese Kingdom

>design by committee

>Aristotle
Remind me again what happened to the Greeks after the Macedonian Conquest?

Oh right, they were suddenly OK with monarchies and god-kings.

At his time, china is small as fuck and there were many small states in it, his home state is Lu.

And a Chinese state contained multiple cities and is the size of a regular-ass country.

To say nothing of the fact that they used to be subjects of the Zhou Kingdom a-la Holy Roman Empire back when the Zhou were alive.

Muh traditional rituals.

Chinese rulers pay lip service to Confucianism, but they rule according to the legalist ideas of Shang Yang.

Some, like Qin Shihuang and Mao Zedong drop the bullshit and admit what they are doing.

Nope. Emperor Mao hid his legalism behind communism.