This chapter continues an unflinching analysis of Chinese civilization through a dialogue between journalist Masayuki Takayama and China scholar Hiizumi Katsuo. Drawing from the observations of Lin Yutang and modern political realities, the discussion exposes China’s entrenched culture of rule-breaking, systemic bribery, bureaucratic privilege, and the enduring psychology of authoritarian submission. From Xi Jinping’s coercive anti-corruption campaigns and wolf-warrior diplomacy to the falsified legacy of Sun Yat-sen, this dialogue dismantles Western and Japanese illusions of China as a “moral state” and warns that only relentless realism and strategic distance can protect Japan from China’s civilizational pathology.

The So-Called “Greatness” of the Chinese

Hiizumi:
In China: Its Culture and Thought, written by the critic Lin Yutang and published in New York in 1935 (Japanese edition: Kodansha Academic Library), there are many penetrating observations about China.
For Japanese readers interested in China and the Chinese people, this is truly required reading.

For example, Lin writes:
“China possesses the power to establish supreme legal codes based on the fundamental principle of rewarding good and punishing evil, and yet at the same time it possesses the capacity not to believe in the very laws and courts it has established. As much as 95 percent of disputes that would normally require legal action are in fact settled outside the courts.”

He also writes:
“The Chinese are capable of destroying, ignoring, evading, falsifying, playing with, and manipulating every rule, regulation, and system.”

Lin characterizes this paradox as ‘the greatness of the Chinese as a people.’

Takayama:
That’s a brilliant passage (laughs).
The Japanese regard strict observance of rules as a virtue.
And that is precisely why they are so easily exploited.

Hiizumi:
Lin also makes the following striking observation:
“Even if a catastrophic upheaval were to occur under communist rule, and even if communism—with its external appearance of rigid uniformity and severity—were to come to dominate society, it would not be communism that destroys China’s ancient traditions. Rather, China’s ancient traditions of individuality, tolerance, moderation, and common sense would pulverize communism, hollow out its substance, and transform it into something almost indistinguishable from traditional Chinese society. There is no doubt that this will happen.”

That is why the communism of today’s China is nothing more than an imitation.

Takayama:
From the very beginning, there was no genuine ideology.
Everything is simply interpreted in whatever way is convenient.
If Karl Marx were to see China’s so-called communist system today, he would undoubtedly be astounded (laughs).

Hiizumi:
Lin Yutang goes even further and writes:
“All Chinese are irreproachable good people, and the most commonly conjugated verb in Chinese grammar is the verb ‘to take a bribe’:
‘I take a bribe. You take a bribe. He takes a bribe. We take a bribe. You all take a bribe. They take a bribe.’
This verb ‘to take a bribe’ is a regular verb.”

The Japanese know far too little about the true realities of the Chinese people.

Lin also makes this pointed remark:
“In China there are in fact only two social classes. One is the bureaucratic class that enjoys special privileges. The other is the non-bureaucratic class that must pay taxes and obey the law—in other words, the ordinary people.”

In today’s terms, this means that Chinese society is divided into members of the Communist Party and non-members.
This is a fundamentally different society from Japan or the Japanese people.
China is by no means a “moral state.”

Takayama:
If I were to describe the Chinese in a single phrase, it would be that a deep-rooted slave mentality is thoroughly ingrained in them.
They possess neither genuine tradition nor authentic history.
That is why there is absolutely no concept of public spirit—the desire to keep one’s country, city, or surroundings clean and orderly.
Because they were slaves, even if they cleaned the place they lived today, they never knew where they might be forced to go tomorrow.
Thus, the concept of settlement and rootedness never developed.
The character qiao in huaqiao (overseas Chinese) is said to carry the meaning of “rootlessness” or “drifting,” and that is exactly what it signifies.

Hiizumi:
In that sense, the Chinese themselves are all huaqiao.
They originally inhabited the Yellow River basin, but historically their ethnic groups migrated incessantly.
Overseas Chinese are merely those who crossed beyond China’s borders; their essence remains unchanged.

Takayama:
They lie without the slightest hesitation, without any sense of guilt.
To the Japanese, they are the most detested type of morally corrupt people.
And into that was injected communism.
The result is utterly unmanageable.

Hiizumi:
Lin Yutang also wrote the following:
“What China needs now is not moral education for politicians, but prisons for them.
The only way to compel officials to maintain integrity is to threaten them with execution the moment corruption is exposed.”

What Xi Jinping is doing today is exactly this.

Takayama:
That also explains wolf-warrior diplomacy.
When you speak with people who have studied in China, many of them say, “There are Chinese who are more capable than the Japanese.”
There are none (laughs).
If there were truly so many people superior to the Japanese, China would long ago have transformed into a nation of proper manners and civility.
But in reality, as Pillsbury has pointed out, even after growing wealthy, China has not changed in the slightest.

Hiizumi:
Even if only ten percent of the Chinese population were like that, given their numbers, they would already outnumber the Japanese.
Human beings consist only of good people and bad people.
China’s population is twelve to thirteen times that of Japan.
That means there are twelve to thirteen times as many foolish and malicious people as in Japan.
At the same time, there are also just as many intelligent yet malicious Chinese.
In that sense alone, the Japanese would have to work fifteen times harder just to compete with China.

Takayama:
That is precisely why Ms. Sanae Takaichi’s remark—“Work and toil and work and toil and work and toil”—is absolutely correct (laughs).
Just as Shinzo Abe once practiced “strategic neglect” toward South Korea, Japan should likewise keep China at a respectful distance.
The Japanese must not engage China on equal moral terms.
If Japan is to deal with China at all, it should employ diplomats like the Jews—people who fully understand cunning and yet place supreme importance on contracts.
Japanese diplomats cannot prevail against China.

Hiizumi:
Former Ambassador to China Hideo Tarumi recently published The Secret Record of Japan–China Diplomacy (Bungeishunju).
There was, however, one deeply disappointing passage.
He writes with pride that he brought young Chinese intellectuals and officials to Japan to study.
When they praised Japan as “wonderful,” he told them, “I want you to become modern-day Sun Yat-sens.”
But there is hardly a more fraudulent figure than Sun Yat-sen.
Even a man of Mr. Tarumi’s stature misjudges Sun Yat-sen so completely.

Takayama:
Sun Yat-sen never passed the imperial civil service examinations.
He spoke English, but he lacked even the most basic qualifications to stand at the top of Chinese society.
When the Xinhai Revolution broke out, he was idling about in Denver, Colorado, in the United States.
A true revolutionary would have flown back to China immediately.
Instead, Sun traveled through New York and London, obsessively raising money, and only returned at the very end of the year.
He was a con artist who exploited the revolution as a money-making scheme—and, moreover, a man of extreme womanizing habits.

Hiizumi:
The industrialist Shokichi Umeya, who supported Sun Yat-sen, provided financial aid said to be equivalent to one trillion yen in today’s monetary values.
The nationalist Mitsuru Toyama also gave Sun generous support.
Yet after the revolution, Sun turned his back on Japan without hesitation and allied himself with the Soviet Union.

(To be continued.)