- Preface summary:
Taoist school is a relatively complex school of thought. On one hand, it represents the interests of the backward slave-owning class, wanting to regress back to the early slave society era with small states and few people; but on the other hand, it is very clear that this is impossible, so it does not support Confucius’s radical restoration of slavery. Additionally, it has developed some ideas of naive dialectics, thus having some progressive aspects. Therefore, different schools have absorbed different aspects of Taoist thought. The progressive Legalists absorbed dialectics and used it as a guide to promote the development of productive forces and the transformation of production relations; small landowners, bankrupt petty bourgeoisie, and small exploiters are attracted to a reclusive rural life with one man, one woman, and one ox, wishing to live in a utopian land without struggle, engaging in parasitic exploitation (this trend is especially popular today, and the popularity of Li Ziqi is a reflection of this trend); reactionary Confucianists are very pleased with the idealist thoughts of the ignorant masses within, and gradually incorporate them into their own doctrines. Later, the so-called principle of
2 About the Taoist classic “Tao Te Ching,” and how different people view the concept of “Tao”:
① The so-called Tao is the absolute spirit, which is heaven, the so-called Heavenly Tao. Abstractly speaking, Tao is a certain law, which in ancient Taoism refers to the laws of heaven, the laws and will of gods. In fact, this kind of thought also reflects Taoism’s wish to regress to a slave-owning political stance, longing for a god who is a slave owner, who evolves a good world (i.e., a slave-owning world) through his will (the will of the slave owner).
However, Legalist landowners have a different view of “Tao.” The Legalist landowning class believes that Tao is not a divine entity, not something ordained by heaven to humans, but is a material, objective thing. For example, Liu Zongyuan and others believed it to be natural objective laws. In his philosophical stance, “Wen yi ming dao,” meaning that writing should explain principles, tell the way for common people to live good lives, reform production relations, and develop productive forces—this actually reflects Legalist utilitarian ideas. In contrast, Han Yu’s “Wen yi zai dao,” meaning that writing is used to prove Confucian principles, is similar to Western scholastic philosophy, where the purpose of writing is to prove the existence of God. Han Yu’s “Wen yi zai dao” means that writing is to prove the correctness of Confucian principles.
② The so-called virtue (De) refers to the conduct of the slave-owning class, the mystical will of heaven, a quality possessed only by the slave-owning class (review: Confucius’s development of Confucianism from Tian De to Ren De).
From this, it can be seen that Lao Ran’s book is called “Tao Te Ching” because it reflects his declining slave-owning ideas, and in the end, it still turns to the mystical will of gods and heaven. Therefore, his thought is objective idealism (everything is determined by the absolute spirit), and thus dialectical thinking cannot develop, ultimately returning to metaphysics, which is a major limitation. 【Lao Ran believes that Confucius’s strong slave-owning stance is not feasible, and hopes to sing a new tune, aiming to reform the slave system. This set of ideas is actually similar to Hegel’s—Hegel knew that feudalism could not develop further, and capitalism would inevitably come, but he wanted to preserve the feudal system. Therefore, he represented the weak bourgeoisie, the group that “comes from the Junker and goes to the Junker.” Their political stance is: capitalism’s development and change can stop at the current stage, and should not develop further. Thus, Hegel believed that Prussia’s incomplete, semi-feudal capitalism was the pinnacle of absolute spirit, the most perfect system. From this perspective, it is similar to Laozi’s idea of returning to a slave society with a small state and few people, only Laozi’s ideal society is a small, simple state, while Hegel’s is semi-feudal, semi-capitalist Prussia.
3 Old Ran’s worldview,
Laozi believes that “Tao” as the essence of the universe is the root of all things in heaven and earth. The “Tao” discussed by Laozi is not a material entity, but “void”, an absolute spirit beyond time and space. Laozi considers that “Tao” is “the primordial energy born before heaven and earth, which can be called the mother of all under heaven”. That is to say, all things in heaven and earth are generated by “Tao”, and it can be seen that “Tao” is “nothing”. “Nothing” is the source of all things in heaven and earth. The so-called “nameless, the beginning of heaven and earth,” also means this. Laozi’s “Tao” is both “void”, an ontological entity that cannot be seen, heard, or touched, which is beyond space; and because this ontological “Tao” is eternal and unchanging, it is the longest-lasting. Therefore, “Tao” is also beyond time. Time and space are the forms of material existence, and this “Tao” beyond space and time is not material, but the absolute spirit he believes to generate material.
Therefore, in Lao Ran’s view, the relationship between “Tao” and “things” is that “Tao” precedes “things” — this is also why scholars of the principle are called “Tao scholars”. Later Confucianists integrated Taoism into Confucianism, absorbing its mystical elements, thus showing certain similarities with Taoism in terms of reaction and counter-reaction. Similarly, Zhu Xi also said that reason exists before Qi, and before heaven and earth, reason already existed; regardless of how it changes, it reflects the three bonds and five constants (Hegel and Pythagoras praised this). In this way, material things are derived from the spiritual “Tao”. This is the view that spirit is the primary principle, and matter is the secondary. Since Laozi also regarded “Tao” as an objective independent existence, Laozi’s philosophy still belongs to the objective idealist system.
P.S.: “Heaven’s net is vast and wide” is not a metaphor, but a view of fatalism. However, Laozi generally does not emphasize the word “mandate of heaven”, but attributes the “Tao” to the作用 of this spiritual essence of “Wuwei” (non-action). That is to say, he uses “Wuwei” and “no action” as the absolute spirit “Tao” to replace a conscious deity. But this “Tao” is actually connected with the doctrine of divine will, and itself is a kind of eternal “mandate of heaven”. Therefore, Laozi’s view of the heavenly way, although generally not emphasizing a personal god, is actually a metaphysical eternal doctrine of divine will.
As for “Tao follows nature”, it does not mean that “Tao” is subject to the material world of nature, but that “Tao” is inherently so, meaning it is natural by nature. That is to say, “Tao” has nothing above it; it is the primary spiritual ontological entity. At that time, society was undergoing great changes, and Laozi saw from his personal experience that the class struggle was “high and low leaning”, making him realize that class positions are not fixed. “Heaven and earth cannot last long, let alone humans?” This reflects the struggle of oppressed classes against oppressors, the progressive class against the reactionary class, and the struggles among ruling classes during the transformation from racial slavery to feudalism in Laozi’s thought.
- Naive Dialectics of Taoism
In Laozi’s Tao Te Ching, there are still many concepts of opposition (Blessing depends on misfortune, misfortune hides in blessing). This reflects the objective law that things always transform towards their opposites, which is the naive dialectical thought. When Laozi’s naive dialectical thought is applied to military strategy and tactics, he proposed “softness and weakness overcoming hardness and strength,” and thus he advocated “using surprise in warfare to achieve victory through unconventional methods.” Laozi’s ideas are somewhat similar to those of the famous military strategists Sun Wu and Sun Bin during the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States.
However, the dialectic in Laozi’s philosophy has fundamental flaws. Since he stands on the position of the declining class, he admits that things have opposites and contradictions, and that they transform into each other. But he believes that the tendency of things is always from “being” back to “non-being,” from “movement” back to “stillness,” and he considers this tendency as the “constant” of all things. He views contradictory movement as relative, while unity and stillness are absolute. He sees movement as a cyclic process that ultimately returns to a state of rest. In this way, he falls into the quagmire of metaphysical cycle theory, resolving contradictions midway. This is closely related to his reactionary stance and his adherence to a idealist worldview that takes “non-being” as the fundamental reality.
Although Laozi has dialectical ideas, he insists on the stance of the slave-owning class, and therefore ultimately falls into metaphysics. His developmental view is opposed to Confucianism, but his ideas are similar—Taoism also advocates genius theory, denies the role of practice in cognition, and promotes “knowing the world without leaving the house.” In fact, this set of ideas is the slave-owning class’s way of doing nothing, not doing anything, yet claiming to have the qualification and ability to rule. Therefore, they promote genius theory and advocate the reactionary notion that slaves do nothing and know everything.
- Laozi’s Political Thought
Lao Ren advocates the so-called “wu wei er zhi” (non-action governing), and takes the “small country with few people” as an ideal social landscape, which is actually to restore a closed, backward slave society, causing society to regress. In fact, his non-action governance means that the common people should ask no questions and take no action, be ignorant and desireless, similar to “the people may be led by the ruler, but not made aware,” and “do not speak without propriety, do not act without propriety, do not listen without propriety.” He wants to “always keep the people ignorant and desireless,” so they can accept exploitation and slavery, which is the reactionary essence of “wu wei er zhi.” Laozi also said, “If you want to seize it, you must give it firmly.” On the surface, he advocates “non-competition,” and may even give you a little sweetness, but in reality, he aims to take everything from you. [“Emperor’s Mind Technique”: Laozi appears to help others and be selfless, but it is to gain more.] As mentioned above: Laozi’s thoughts have different reactions among people of different classes, strata, and political groups. After the Qin and Han dynasties, due to different political stances, people’s understanding of Daoism and Laozi’s thoughts often varied. Han Fei criticized and transformed the “Dao” in the “Laozi” book, and absorbed its dialectical elements, enabling it to serve the interests of the emerging landlord class.
6 Zhuang Zhou’s development of Taoist思想在反动方面：
Zhuang Zhou认为“道”是宇宙本体，是永恒存在的，谁也不知道它从什么时候开始，到什么时候终结；它造出了鬼神和上帝，生出了苍天和大地，是产生天地万物的根源。这和老子所说“道”的涵义基本一致。
不过庄周也有和老子不同的地方。他所谓“道”指的是人们的主体精神——也就是说他的哲学是主观唯心主义的。他认为人只要自以为精神上得“道”，就可以与“道”同体。即是说，“我”就是“道”,“道”就是“我”，实质上“道”就是人的主体精神。所以他说：“天地与我并生，而万物与我为一。”他所谓世界只是人们主体观念的产物，是主观观念的世界。定论：庄周的哲学是属于主观唯心主义体系。
庄子对物质世界和一般世俗的人感到讨厌。他和老子一样，都是反映当时的没落奴隶主思想，但比老子更加消极。因此他要把自己寄托在超出形骸之外的精神活动中，要“独与天地精神往来”,“上与造物者游，而下与外死生无终始者为友”。这样一来必然得出人的精神是不死的、灵魂是不灭的结论。他是用薪尽火传来比喻的：用柴比喻人的形体用火比喻人的精神，形体虽会死亡，但精神、灵魂是永远传续下去。【实际上薪火相传一开始本意是表示唯心主义观点，是灵魂不灭。由此可见，薪火相传这个词语和墨守成规一样，在当代已经偏离了它原本的含义。在今天薪火相传已经是一个褒义的正面的词汇了不过从唯物辩证法的角度来看，当这个词刚刚诞生出来的时候是反动的。】庄周在形神关系上坚持神不灭观点，正是他主观唯心主义世界观的必然归结。
今天的小资产阶级中上层和一些破产小资产阶级接触庄周的思想更多，庄周的认识论和他的世界观相适应，是从相对主义走向虚无主义和不可知论。可以说庄周是把辩证法变成坏的东西了。从他的哲学观点来说，大的可以是小的，坏的可以说对的。是公说公有理婆说婆有理的相对主义，是把辩证法变成了不可知论。而就像列宁说的，辩证法可以从相对主义走向诡辩论。
庄周的世界观既然否定客观的物质世界，所以他不承认生与死、大与小以及古与今等等的区分，也不承认有正确和错误的是非标准。他说：“彼亦一是非，此亦一是非”，你说你有理，我说我有理，根本否认有客观真理。他认为人类认识是不可靠的，真理是不可知的。 因此他反对追求知识，说什么“吾生也有涯 ，而知也无涯，以有涯随无涯，殆己”。列宁所指出：“把相对主义作为认识论的基础， 就必然使自己不是陷入绝对怀疑论、不可知论和诡辩，就是陷入主观主义。”庄周哲学在世界观上是否定物质世界；在认识论上是否定有客观真理；与此相联系，在政治论上是企图毁灭社会制度而归于所谓“至德之世”。这是比老子“小国寡民”更为原始的社会，是“同与禽兽居，族与万物并“,”同乎无知”,“同乎无欲”【也就是纳粹中国所鼓吹的回到树上去】，即人类和禽兽同住在一起、与万物同聚在一块，成为人兽不分，人与物没有区别，大家都是没有知识也没有欲望的浑沌世界。
从庄周看来，社会上的人有了文化知识，才会引起互相争夺，所以社会上要做到没有圣贤才智的人，大盗才能肃清。【这里也就是成语圣人不死大盗不止的来源。有的人会把这个成语错误理解认为是只有像孔丘这样子的所谓圣人死光了天下才会太平，实际上是错误的。】要把计算容量的升斗砍破；把计算重量的秤杆折断，这样把计算标准都不要了，一般人民就不会去争多论少。这表面看来象是提出防止社会争端的方法，其实这是老子愚民政策的继续。他要人民“愚而朴”来保持所谓“真性”，就是要让人民无识无知，使他们 不会起来斗争和反抗。庄周社会政治思想的阶级本质，在这一点上就充分暴露了出来。
庄周的政治思想，比老子更加倒退。他否定一切文化知识，反对生产技术的进步。甚至主张退回到和禽兽一起生活的人。他们鼓吹这种东西不是因为真的想这样生活不，而是因为生产力发展，阶级斗争中经验越来越丰富，奴隶主统治不下去了，所以他们想要维护自己的统治，就想要到退回无知无识的“原始时代”，归根结底是要维护反动统治。这就是道家的反动之处。
道家思想在今天在小资产阶级中十分流行，这和今天的“隐居”也是一样的。因为那些濒临破产的剥削阶级和小资产阶级怕斗争不敢斗争，又想要过剥削阶级生活，因此十分倾向于道教，想要倒退回到没有阶级斗争的时代。这种思想归根结底是在号召人民放弃斗争。【李子柒火也是因为如此，他所宣传的种种东西正好就恰合了资产阶级的这种统治需求】。这就符合反动资产阶级的理想：到没有阶级斗争的地方做一个剥削阶级（但从反面来讲，庄周提出这种哲学思潮，也可以说庄周在某种程度上认识到了奴隶制为什么灭亡）。【对此也可以看出在社会上所流行的一些像什么“主观利己客观利他”论调的真面目。“主观利己客观利他”这种论调，结合起来“无为而无不为”的观点可以看出，实际上是鼓吹道教的那套暂时落后反而占先的理论，是不关心自己反而自己获利，给别人利益自己反而得到更多。这就是“无为而无不为”的本质。是奴隶主阶级惯用手段。】
这套处事哲学在现在也很流行。比如刘少奇也喜欢这套，他说：“办大家的事情，是占人点便宜好，还是吃点亏好？我看宁愿吃点亏。人家不干的，你干，这不是吃了亏了吗？要宁愿吃这个亏，这叫吃小亏，占大便宜。一心一意工作，可能人家一时不了解，但10年20年会看清楚。相反，整天想到个人，最后是没有个人利益，占小便宜，吃大亏。”【他的意思就是要复辟资本主义，先要把自己装扮成一副好人面孔，以便以后一举夺权。】刘少奇的女儿也暴露：他以前对我的教育，表面上也让我学习毛选，但实际上是叫我“吃小亏，占大便宜”，“丢了芝麻，拣了西瓜”，“你想得的，反而得不到；不想得的反而得到了”
- The transformation of Legalist ideas on Taoist thought.
The Legalists once transformed the concept of “Wu Wei” (non-action). Many people have mistakenly believed that Han Fei said something about governing by non-action, and Emperor Wen of Han and Emperor Jing of Han also practiced Huang-Lao governance, following the Taoist route. In fact, this is fundamentally incorrect. Han Fei said: “When laws and decrees are clear, the ruler does not need to worry much; the ministers and the people below will tremble with fear, and there will be no need for further intervention.” From his perspective, this was entirely from the standpoint of the Legalist landlord class, demanding that the ruler implement policies that combine law, technique, and power, so that the state is fully under the rule of law. This way, it would no longer fall into chaos as before, and the ruler could relax. Wei Zheng also said that selecting virtuous and capable people could lead to governance with a relaxed attitude, and his views are similar to Han Fei’s.
The so-called “Wu Wei” (non-action) transformed during the early Han period was more popular. Emperor Wen and Emperor Jing of Han also followed this approach. Their so-called “Wen Jing Governance” was not a Taoist policy but rather a practical Legalist policy. Because after years of warfare, the laboring masses were exhausted and needed rest and recovery. During this time, reducing corvée labor and alleviating exploitation was actually conducive to production development, which aligned with the needs of the emerging Legalist landlord class to develop productive forces and served their class interests. Many now promote Wen Jing governance as non-action governance, but this is a mistake rooted in historical idealism. It fails to recognize the fundamental nature of the struggle between two routes in Chinese history and falls into superficial appearances. The so-called “Nazi China” also promotes this view to erase the history of class struggle in ancient China, serving their purpose of propagating historical idealism and maintaining reactionary rule.
The book refers to the author of the Dao De Jing as Laozi, probably because it is uncertain whether it is Lao Dan.
The great thieves referred to here should probably be the rebels among the working people.
Moreover, Taoism also advocates that people should “empty their minds, fill their stomachs, weaken their will, strengthen their bones,” making people’s spirits hollow and ensuring their physiological needs are adequately met. In reality, it is similar to the so-called “nipple music” of the current bourgeoisie, satisfying people’s appetites with high-oil, high-salt, high-sugar foods and drinks, and using pornography and reactionary games to prevent people from revolting. They believe that this way, everything will be fine.
It is possible that I didn’t know before whether Laozi was Lao Ran or not, and there was some debate. I have learned from it.
It’s possible, I didn’t know before whether Laozi was Lao Ran or not, and there was some debate, so I defaulted to thinking they are the same person. Learned something.
Therefore, Taoism ultimately serves the ruling class, especially the reactionary slave-owning class. It is extremely reactionary in deceiving the working people (although the progressive Legalist landlord class also implements similar policies due to its exploitative nature, but that is another issue). Many people promote Taoism as “following nature” or “living in harmony with the world,” but in fact, that is not the case at all. Taoism is very skilled in the art of imperial court politics and scheming.
Yes, it should be