Robert Bruces article titled The Return to Confucius? asserts that Confucianism may be the answer to Asian economic strife. However, he fails to draw a clear link between economic prosperity and Confucianism, instead leaving the reader to hypothesize using the information given in the article, and, in our case, the Analects.I believe the message he is trying to convey is that a nation living in harmony is an economically prosperous one. This he supports with references to imperial China such as Matteo Ricci who, as Bruce states, brought a vision of harmony, equality, scholarship and education, which the Enlightenment of Europe regarded with awe and admiration. What Bruce neglects to mention is that China had little exposure to the Western world at that point in history and was not greatly influenced by Western culture until relatively recently. Chinas bloody entrance into the global economy finally came in the form of the Opium War and consequently, foreign spheres of influence. The British and French spheres in particular provided a catalyst to the Westernization of China. Confucian ideals were repressed and ridiculed along with any other unique aspect of Chinese culture. The economy once based firmly on the ideals Bruce writes about was crushed by the brute force of capitalism.As Bruce so kindly points out, the Communist Revolution in China followed soon after, and, while it had little support from Europe, Mao and Stalin became close and they prospered from one another for a time. China was also forced into a system spawned by a far more Western train of thought than it was accustomed to a system that, more often than not, was at war with Confucianism rather than utilizing it. Bruce implies that China and several surrounding countries are now basking in their own Confucianism and it is yielding enormous economic dividends. Yet again, Bruce fails to point out that there have been entire generations raised on an anti-Confucian doctri...
