On Strength in the Community for Strength in the Nation is an essay written by Yuan Shinua in 1961 that he submitted to the National Congress for consideration. A congressman himself, Yuan Shinua and several others used the essay as the framwork for the Chinese Community Center and other province-scale Community programs. The essay as entered the mainstream Chinese intellectual and essayist communities as one of several important intellectual pieces.
As it was stated by Marx: "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation". Thus, the soiling of a people and of a community is seen with the devaluing of the family, and of the community as a whole. The destruction that may be wrought on a nation is within its community units, its families, its neighborhoods, and its communes. A strong nation demands strong bonds within the community. For its security, it must hold internal and just strength and compassion between individuals between class and race.
To execute this, the people must become one. Bonds must be forged. Barriers between class need to be eroded so that all men see themselves as equals not just financially, but socially as well.
Certain moves must be executed to help the people destroy these barriers on their own. Simply ignoring society and allowing it to go about as it does while passing laws and edicts to raise one class and lower the other does not sufficiently end inequality and a nameless existence of class structure. It makes all classes the same, but does not allow for the walls to be removed. It is giving everyone a palace, but keeping a brick-wall between those who are cobblers, and those who are princes. The people of the society must be brought close together.
Xiao and the Chinese ManifestoEdit
China has in its culture that method. Confucian Xiao. Through Xiao the society may create branching relationships with each other. These relationships dissolve malicious barriers and keep a nation ironically divided up. But the opportunity needs to be provided. On their own, the cobbler and prince will not speak to each other; will not see that the barriers they have long put between them dissolved. However, in a situation where both are economically equal they have little basis to distance themselves. Interaction between each other similar to the way they interact with those on their level must be had. Given repeat interaction, they will become comrades and all thoughts of one being in two different subjective roles will be removed from the equation.
We thus see that friendship is the key to the equalization of society and the merger of the people. To remove the bandwagon and show everyone the humanity in us all. To show the humanity and one-ness within the community. When one sees we are all one the same then the evolution and revolution of the society is fulfilled.
The suggestion of Hou Sai Tang may also be carried out too. His ideas regarding the concept of race do not need to be abolished, but rather overcome. When we have members of different skin and creed interacting with members of another in a passive and friendly matter the intermixing has the same effect as the abolishment of social barriers. This act creates an admiration for each other's tradition and allows us to see it as human as our own. Race is not a bourgeis concept, as Hou argues, but racism is.
However, it mustn't be ignored that the human nature to form a hierarchy is still in effect, snd dually supported in Xiao. We will be simply enlarging the area by which Xiao is in effect. From the orders dictating the order of children to parents, grand-children to grand-parents, people to state we will be encouraging family to family. But there must always be someone on top. But to preserve the revolution and to prevent the recreation of a new bourgeis, the system must remain fluid with the followers to leader hierarchy changing based on popularity.
Politics within the Community and the effect the Community has on PoliticsEdit
So in the same vein that our government operates democratically, with leaders being elected and appointments made by vote, we must also encourage and make the very organizations that oversee these mechanization the most democratic possible. This is to give the people the leader they must follow on these levels, while preventing that leader from abusing his post. The Community must maintain the purest level of democracy most free of affiliation with the outside. These leaders must be elected and work with equal powers within. And their power must be limited in such a way they are forced to only act in the confines and interests of their community.
These broken barriers will thus lead to a period of social fluidity as ideas can pass between the now more ghostly classes with greater ease. Thereby being capable of reaching the ears and minds of those with power. These people, granted their influence and following, may perchance join The Party itself by running for a seat come its next election. And when the State interacts on this level those acting in the state's behalf as elected by the people may garner feedback.
The forming those personal bonds will keep the government from drifting from the people's interests by bringing the fears and interests of the people to the forefront of political minds through friendships established within the common community. It is through this that we may examine the bourgeoisie society and see that they have a great fault which endangers them all.
They may make claims that they are rooted in the working class, and have their interests at heart. But when they find a seat in their power structure and begin to rule they have lost their direct contact with the proletariat. They have severed fragile ties that root them to more pertinent issues. They effectively leap from one class, or type of class, and into another. And in this new position they only interact amongst themselves. Thereby the interest of the elected officials and officers shifts to the interests of a new peer group.
Two examples might be plucked from the world to give an example of the damages this causes and the failure of their own democracy, or the justness of their kings.
In the United States the elected senators, representatives, and the president and higher staff on at their disposal their own private facilities. The white-house houses a private barbershop for the president. The house and senate both house their own gyms. Recreational facilities such as camps and retreats are provided for their pleasure.
Security groups in the US may argue that this is a security measure. But for whom? Certainly not the people. For this kind of segregation separates them from the people they are deemed to represent. This puts them in contact solely with those of their affiliation and party.
Likewise can it be said for the kings of Europe and Asia. And the shahs, sultans, and caliphs of the Arab world and Africa. Where the disconnect between the leader and his people is separated by a powerful and intimidating fortress of private pleasures, resources, equipment, and everything in their hands under the sun. To the kings of Europe: the private hunting grounds. To the emperors of China: private palaces and hidden carriages.
Likewise, these conditions lead only to the appointment of men of similar rank based on favors or affiliation. For example, the creation of the Royal Cabinet in 1911 by Zaifeng. Of the men on it many were affiliated with the royal family or Aisin Gioro family. The rise of the Kumantang afterwards could be seen as a reaction of this and that because the people on it were distant from the real people of China.
So it should be expressly put that no man in this nation should be made part of a private community, and that they should remain regular in their native community or any kind of local community where they are in touch with the real people. This encouraging both the realization of what's relevant in the minds of the people they represent, and to prevent a personal disconnect that will lead to rebellion where the state must act with its final weapon and fight back.
Security and In EndingEdit
The formation of strong community bonds also encourages a culture of strong self moderation. Deviance is discouraged through the sheer passive act of acting and being normal. As humans, we gossip. As humans, we wish to act as each other. We claim to be lone tigers when we are in fact are all still sheep. We will challenge strange change in act. Or feel concerned.
We also desire comfort from being a part of a group. Following the arguments of Emile Durkheim, we can presume that we may lower the suicide rate of our people, and perhaps promote happiness through encouraging social cohesion and happiness. Based on his study between the catholic and protestant churches, we are lead to believe that close family and social bonds are very likely in increasing happiness. Bringing us all close to be aware of our pain and fears. Bringing us close in order for therapy. Bringing us close so we may be healthy. All because of centralization, through the Roman Church, family, or synagogue.
Br providing a strong emphasis on the creation of community, and centralizing it we can promote a healthy China. The state will be aware of the people's desires and not drift. The people will moderate themselves, and be healthy. And we do not need to damage Chinese values, merely enhance them. The family, and the community will be a strong element, and not become a monetary value.
The essay cites in its support:
Communist Manifesto (Marx, 1848)
The fall of the Qing Dynasty (and various other things)
Suicide (Émile Durkheim, 1897)