Yusheng

Abstract: This paper argues, based on the definition of the state and the historical conditions for its emergence, that the dynasties of the three dynasties before the Warring States period in China, similar to the United Nations and the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, were not states in the true sense. Confucius and Mencius, who revered Yao and Shun and modeled themselves on Wen and Wu, exhibited strong anarchist tendencies and individualistic liberalism. This anarchic social order in ancient China was based on a primitive social superpower: after dividing human society into a genetically encoded primitive society and a man-made secondary society, it is found that Chinese civilization began in this primitive social superpower. The hierarchical division and the balance of local power meant that the Chinese people, even after entering civilization, still lived at the primitive social level. The author cites the *I Ching* to illustrate the individualistic anarchist tendencies in this primitive society. The social lifestyle of this primitive social superpower can be summarized as the complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism; therefore, Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Confucius and Mencius all had anarchist tendencies. This article analyzes and lists various anarchist thoughts and behaviors of Confucius and Mencius, and compares the drastically different anarchist behaviors of Mencius, Zhuangzi, and Diogenes of ancient Greece. The conclusion is that the West began with a secondary society of a typical state, and its historical development subsequently returned to the original society; China, on the contrary, began with anarchy and gradually evolved towards authoritarianism and a typical state. The author uses the frequency of the word “I” in poetry to represent the degree of subjective expression, to test Marx’s theory of state dictatorship. The results show that the historical trajectories of East and West are opposite: Western history exhibits an increase in the degree of subjective expression, while the degree and persistence of the decline in subjective expression in China over three thousand years are striking. The ratio of the “I” in poetry after the Tang Dynasty is similar to that of the suicidal poet Qu Yuan, prompting contemplation of the heart-wrenching pain of the ancients.

Keywords: Anarchic society, monopoly of violence, state formation theory, subjectivity of expression, primordial society, secondary society, primordial society-style superpower, Confucian anarchism

According to Marxist theory, state politics is a system of dictatorship maintained by one class ruling and exploiting another, namely, the army, police, and prisons. Confucius, however, said, “Politics is about being upright,” meaning that politics is about the upright conduct of leaders; Mencius spoke of benevolent governance, and benevolence is the heart of compassion. A society led by upright conduct and compassion can only be anarchic, reflecting the reality of anarchy in pre-Warring States China. Anarchist thought is an important part of the Confucian and Mencian philosophical system, largely constituting the core of their political theory, albeit under the guise of moral and ritualistic teachings. Moral and ritualistic teachings cannot replace dictatorship; they can only help maintain the existing social order. Moreover, Confucian and Mencian morality was determined by themselves, lacking objective standards and a socially binding judgment process.

I. The Concept of Modern Anarchism

The common meaning of “anarchy” refers to a state of social chaos and anarchy. This is not uncommon in human history, often leading to warlord conflicts. However, anarchy and social chaos are not fundamentally related. Human governments have only existed for five or six thousand years. In the one or two hundred thousand years prior, the societies of what we now call Homo sapiens were not in chaos. Undeniable evidence shows that since the advent of civilization, under government leadership, the frequency and scale of wars have increased significantly compared to the anarchic era. Since pre-civilization humans could live anarchic lives, civilized humans can also live anarchic lives. There are many such examples in history, such as the Icelandic anarchic society that lasted for over three hundred years (930-1262). Generally speaking, the Indian civilization (2600-1900 BCE), which lasted for over seven hundred years, was also an anarchic society.

Modern anarchism encompasses numerous philosophical systems and social movements. It was first proposed by William Godwin (1756-1836) and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865). Its basic stance is opposition to all rule and authority, including government, advocating self-help among individuals and focusing on individual freedom and equality; its political demand is the elimination of government and any authoritarian rule in society or the economy. For anarchists, “anarchy” does not represent chaos, nihilism, or moral decay, but rather a harmonious society formed by the voluntary association of free individuals, characterized by mutual assistance and self-governance. However, there are significant differences of opinion and numerous factions among anarchists regarding how anarchic societies are organized, how they operate, and how modern society can transform into anarchic society. My initial impression is that none of them envisioned an anarchic society like those of Lao Tzu or Confucius; they failed to recognize the anarchistic essence of ancient Chinese society.

Lao Tzu advocated small states with few people, which was actually an anarchic society. Therefore, modern Western anarchists often cite Lao Tzu as the founder of anarchism, but rarely talk about the anarchist tendencies of Confucius and Mencius. The connection between Confucianism and anarchism does not start with the author. For example, Wu Zhihui, a modern anarchist social activist, cited the Confucian theory of the Great Learning as the blueprint for anarchism. There are very few works on this topic, which has led some people to mistakenly believe that Lao Tzu lived after Confucius and that the founder of human anarchism should be taken from Lao Tzu and attributed to Confucius. [1]

II. The Complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism and Anarchism

The *Zhuangzi*, in the chapter “Zaiyou,” says: “I have heard of the world being governed by its own nature, but I have never heard of it being governed by humans. To govern by its own nature is to fear that the world will indulge in its inherent virtues; to govern by its own nature is to fear that the world will change its moral character. If the world does not indulge in its inherent natures, nor change its moral character, then how can there be a ruler who governs the world? In the past, when Yao governed the world, he made the world joyful and happy, which was not peaceful; when Jie governed the world, he made the world weary and miserable, which was not pleasant. This lack of peace and pleasure is not virtue. There is no such thing as something that can last long without virtue.” The gist is: I have heard that the world follows its own nature, but I have never heard of it being governed by humans. If the world follows its own nature, its inherent virtues will not change, and therefore there is no need for human governance. When Yao governed the world, the people were happy, but their hearts were not at peace; when Jie governed the world, the people were unhappy. This lack of peace and happiness is not the inherent virtue of the world. There has never been such a thing in the world that can last long without virtue.

More than two thousand years have passed since the time of Yao and Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi believed that the governance of the past two thousand years was a temporary phenomenon that was about to pass, and that the world would eventually return to a state of complete anarchy. More than two thousand years have passed since Zhuangzi, and modern anarchists are beginning to repeat Zhuangzi’s words: the world is about to return to anarchy.

The book *Zhuangzi* quotes Confucius frequently, treating him as a senior figure. The Confucius depicted in *Zhuangzi* exhibits Daoist tendencies. In his youth, Confucius consulted Laozi, and in his later years, he favored the *I Ching*, a text imbued with Daoist thought. Therefore, Daoism and Confucianism have complementary and interconnected aspects. If Laozi and Zhuangzi advocated anarchism, Confucius and Mencius would not have supported government either, and this is precisely the case.

The concept of Yin and Yang, mutually reinforcing and complementary, in the *Tao Te Ching* encompasses all things; that is, things can be defined by their inherent contradictions of mutual support and restraint. This also applies to human society. The author once used the complementary relationship between Confucianism and Taoism to describe the lifestyle of ancient Chinese society. He argued that from the reign of Emperor Wu of Han to the end of the Qing Dynasty, Confucianism was dominant, while Taoism was less prominent, complementing Confucian thought. Taoist thought was prevalent in rural areas, hence Lu Xun’s statement in his letter to Xu Shouchang on August 20, 1918, that “the foundation of China lies entirely in Taoism,” a view that has recently become quite popular. Reading history in this light can readily resolve many questions. The founders of Taoism and Confucianism, Lao Tzu and Confucius, both spoke for the entire society, and both valued the past over the present. Therefore, the lifestyle of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties can still be summarized as a complementary relationship between Confucianism and Taoism, although at this time, Confucianism and Taoism had not yet reached a philosophical level. The author speculated that during the Three Dynasties period, Taoism was the primary driving force, with Confucianism playing a secondary role. [2] During the Three Dynasties period, when society faced crises such as riots and divisions, the pioneering Confucian figures would emerge to call for order through morality and etiquette to stabilize society; while the dominant pioneering Daoist figures emphasized simplicity and purity. As a result, they were able to turn danger into safety and thus block the path to the emergence of a secondary social state. Conclusion: Early Confucianism existed in order to maintain the anarchic social reality.

Third, there was no state or government in the true sense during the three dynasties.

Why did the two philosophical systems of Confucianism and Taoism, which first appeared in Chinese history, both idealize an anarchic society? This is because there was no real state or government in the Three Dynasties. Confucianism and Taoism only summarized and described the reality of ancient Chinese society. China only had a real state in the Warring States period. Max Weber (1864-1920) gave a concise definition of the state, which is considered a classic. He said that the state is the one who monopolizes the right to use violence legally within its territory. [3] Using violence within its territory without the permission of the state constitutes a crime. The dynasties before the Warring States period were very similar to the United Nations today. They used the same method to deal with local forces that did not obey orders, namely, sending allied forces to fight against the local forces. If they were defeated, they would only lose face and would still be their own dynasty and United Nations. The victorious local forces would still be their subordinates. Therefore, the Three Dynasties were like the United Nations today, with constant small conflicts. The ninth line of the Bo hexagram in the Book of Changes says, “The rich do not eat the fruit, the gentleman gets the carriage, the petty man is stripped of his wealth.” That is, the richer one is, the less one can enjoy, and the poor eat the rich. Some biographies of Mao Zedong mention that in his youth, his hometown in Hunan had a secret society called the Gelaohui, influenced by Taoist thought, which organized peasants to exploit wealthy households, thus affecting the Mao family. If the warlord era in Mao’s youth led to anarchy in remote mountainous areas, then judging from the exploitation of wealthy households, the era described in the *I Ching* (Book of Changes) would also have been anarchic. The three dynasties did not monopolize the use of violence.

The three dynasties did not have the historical conditions for the emergence of a state: Marxism believes that the state is the product of irreconcilable class struggle, but the emergence of the three dynasties in China was not like that. The Xia Dynasty was the result of cooperation in governing the Yellow River. The Xia Dynasty inherited the tradition of the Yellow Emperor, who, like the United Nations today, was there to stop the feudal lords from waging war and ravaging the people. [4]

Besides Marx’s theory of class struggle, another popular theory of the origin of the state posits that, in order to cope with international warfare and competition, a nation must establish a cultural tradition distinct from its surroundings as a cohesive force before forming a state for survival. This was not the case during the Three Dynasties period in China. They lacked competing states and forces; on the contrary, they mistakenly believed themselves to be representatives of all humanity. The *Lüshi Chunqiu* (Master Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals), in the chapter “Gui Gong,” records:

A man from Jing lost his bow but refused to retrieve it, saying, “A man from Jing lost it, and a man from Jing found it; why should I seek it back?” Confucius, upon hearing this, said, “Remove the ‘Jing’ part, and it will be fine.” Laozi, upon hearing this, said, “Remove the ‘man’ part, and it will be fine.” Therefore, Laozi was truly impartial. Heaven and Earth are vast indeed; they give birth to all things without claiming them as their own, and complete all things without possessing them. All things are blessed by their grace and benefit from their work, yet none know their origin. This is the virtue of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors.

Confucius’s teachings are centered on benevolence (仁), which means “humanity” or “consideration for all humankind.” Therefore, Confucius advised the people of Jing, who had lost their bow, to forget the state of Chu (Jing) and embrace all people. Lao Tzu, on the other hand, viewed the universe as merely a part of it, and thus advised the people of Jing to forget humanity and embrace nature. The *Lüshi Chunqiu* attributes this Lao Tzu thought to the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, representing ancient Chinese tradition. Whether Lao Tzu focused on the universe and all things, or Confucius on all humankind, the result could only be three dynasties similar to the modern United Nations, without any real states or governments. This was precisely the economic and geographical reality of the time.

According to Wang Yuzhe’s research, Marx and Engels changed their view that ancient Chinese society was a primitive society in their later years. They believed that the peasants of the Asian rural communes were still slaves, not slaves of slave owners, but slaves of despotic monarchs. [5] Karl A. Wittfogel (1896-1988) further developed Marx’s theory of the Asiatic mode of production and proposed the theory of Oriental despotism. Like Marx, Wittfogel believed that politics could not replace economics and that a despotic monarch who could turn the members of the rural commune into slaves must have an economic foundation to give him this ability. He believed that this social transformation in China was accompanied by the transformation from labor rent to tax rent, which occurred at the end of the Spring and Autumn Period and the beginning of the Warring States Period. [6] It was during the Warring States Period that the military power of the state developed to the point that it could control the territory and monopolize all the land. It was also at this time that the state began to distribute land to peasants, and land became privately owned. Confucius mentioned many times in the Analects that he used virtuous governance to attract peasants from afar to join him, that is, peasants had the ability to migrate freely. Although Shang Yang also formulated policies to attract farmers from various Central Plains states to reclaim wasteland in Qin, most farmers lost this ability to migrate freely during the Warring States period. [6] The conclusion is that China before the Warring States period had neither the concept of territorial rights nor the actual power to control farmers, but rather coordinated the balance of power among various local forces, much like the United Nations today.

Some domestic scholars share the same view as the author, but their discussions have not been in-depth and have not led to the conclusion of Confucian and Mencian anarchism. For example, Xu Baiqing stated:

Confucius’s political thought can be summarized as “advancing through action and governing through inaction.” Specifically, it means achieving the highest level of “governing through inaction” through administrative strategies such as “governing the country with propriety,” “governing with virtue,” “appointing virtuous and capable people,” and “simplifying administration and easing the burden on the people.” Confucius’s “inaction” is fundamentally different from Zhuangzi’s “inaction.” Zhuangzi’s “inaction” has a serious anarchist tendency, while Confucius’s “inaction” achieves “governing through inaction” through the political approach of “action.” [7]

This aligns with the author’s view that the early Confucianists, during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, maintained social order and anarchy by advocating morality and ritual. Confucius and Mencius represented a continuation of this early Confucian effort, only that society had undergone a qualitative change, making their goal unattainable. Even so, their ideal of non-interference (wuwei) is essentially no different from Zhuangzi’s non-interference approach; both are forms of anarchy. Furthermore, in a time of frequent wars and constant struggle, achieving non-interference is not easy; it requires a lifetime of effort. Both Confucius and Mencius had ideas of reclusion, but Zhuangzi simply truly retired from public life.

IV. The concept of a two-tiered society and the original social superpower in the three generations.

Confucius used the politics of the Western Zhou Dynasty as a model for his teachings, believing it to be the era when Confucian virtuous governance was realized. Both the *Records of the Grand Historian* and the ancient *Bamboo Annals* record that during the reigns of King Cheng and King Kang, punishments were not used for forty years. This means that in the early Western Zhou Dynasty, no punishments were employed for forty years. Confucius undoubtedly knew and believed this record, and we, more than two thousand years later, have even less reason to doubt it. Forty years without the use of any punishments is direct evidence of anarchy.

A key difference between the Three Dynasties and the modern United Nations is that the Three Dynasties ruled over numerous small states and ethnic minorities, none of which had a formal state system. In contrast, the United Nations comprises over a hundred well-established nations. The United Nations has existed for only sixty-odd years, while the Three Dynasties spanned nearly two millennia. Without a formal state system, what forces maintained their unity and social stability? The Shang and Zhou dynasties were vast, with populations exceeding several million. Several years ago, I proposed the concept of a two-tiered society, dividing all societies on Earth, including animal societies, into a genetically encoded primitive society and a man-made secondary society. I discovered that Chinese civilization began in a primitive society, while Western civilization began in a secondary society. China entered the secondary society stage during the Warring States period. The following is a social model of a superpower in the primitive society of the Three Dynasties:

The Imperial Family: Quasi-Primitive Society + Scholars

│

Feudal families, quasi-primitive society, and literati

│

Village Family Primitive Society

In this model, each level lives within its own primordial society, and the guiding principles of their social life remain the equality, reciprocity, and emotional intuition of primordial society—that is, leveraging the powerful force of human nature to stabilize society, much like in prehistoric societies. Due to space limitations, please refer to the preceding text. [4, 8]

V. The Anarchy of Primitive Social Superpowers as Seen Through the I Ching

According to Mr. Mai Jinheng, Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi all supported the Zhou Dynasty[9]. Confucius even took the Western Zhou Dynasty as a model, and the Book of Changes was a work from the early Western Zhou Dynasty, showing a rare picture of the anarchic social life of the Western Zhou Dynasty. Since the author has written a special article on this issue[10], only the key points are listed below:

1) Guided by innate nature: A nation has a constitution and principles, which define the direction and purpose of a secondary society. Primitive societies lacked such utilitarian thought; their leisure time was spent, like animals, on relaxation and enjoyment—a broad pursuit of aesthetics: including the beauty of various arts, the beauty of morality, the beauty of social harmony, and the beauty of nature. While the original text of the *I Ching* occasionally uses the word “virtue” (德), it is discussed in conjunction with the natural way of Heaven, viewing morality as innate. The original text of the *I Ching* does not use any terms like “benevolence” (仁), “righteousness” (义), or “propriety” (礼).

2) Anarchy and Localized Conflicts: The Cold War era following World War II was a consequence of the war and cannot be considered normal. The collapse of the Soviet Union is seen as the end of the Cold War, yet localized violent conflicts still occur frequently. By this logic, even the primitive superpowers of the third generation would experience localized conflicts. Primitive social violence, like conflict among animals of the same species, is conducted according to fixed rituals and often ends through intimidation. As depicted in Zhang Yimou’s film *Hero*, both sides confront each other with their eyes closed, resolving disputes through mental battles. The *I Ching*, in the hexagram *Zhong Fu*, line 63, states, “Upon encountering the enemy, some beat drums, some retreat, some weep, some sing.” Only wars in primitive societies would present such chaotic scenes, and only such wars, like primitive social conflicts, resolve disputes without causing casualties.

3) Anarchy and Leaderless: The *I Ching* repeatedly portrays the primordial superpower as not being a government, nor the superior of local forces; therefore, a fitting description is “leaderless.” The *I Ching* not only mentions “leaderless” and “Heaven’s virtue is not the leader,” but also uses the symbolism of Heaven and Earth to represent *tai* (泰), signifying peace and harmony; and *pi* (否), signifying chaos and danger. Although Heaven is above Earth, if Heaven remains indifferent, problems will arise. Only when Heaven descends to Earth can normal communication between Heaven and Earth be achieved. Zou Yan once speculated that there are nine interconnected landmasses surrounded by oceans, and China is located on one of them. He was almost entirely accurate: most of the Earth’s surface is water, and Heaven above water is the norm on Earth, but the 6th hexagram of the *I Ching*, which depicts Heaven above Water, is the *Song* hexagram, signifying litigation and going to court. The explanation is that Heaven above water separates the two, thus leading to litigation.

4) Anarchy and Equal Society: Ancient anarchic societies were almost invariably equal societies; the concept of anarchic capitalism only emerged in modern times. Ancient Indian civilization, though considered anarchic, was a highly developed commercial society with accumulated wealth, yet it was still an equal society. Tribes isolated for a long time on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, such as the Apa Tanis and the Nagas (who practiced headhunting), despite the former being peaceful and the latter often plundering farmers from the plains, were both equal societies. The *I Ching* describes an equal society. The 15th hexagram says, “The superior man, by benefiting the poor from the rich, distributes things equally according to their wealth.” Here, “superior man” refers to a local official whose task is to use the rich to help the poor, distributing wealth equally according to its quantity. The third section above, “The rich do not eat the large fruit; the superior man obtains a carriage; the inferior man is stripped of his possessions,” addresses two aspects of the same issue. The poor eating the rich and the rich distributing wealth stem from the same social requirement.

5) Gender Equality: The *I Ching* reveals the idea of ​​gender equality, which is truly valuable given the male-dominated history of China for thousands of years. The *Da Guo* hexagram mentions an old man marrying a young wife, “No harm,” followed immediately by “An old woman getting a young husband, “No blame, no praise.” The author’s thinking is similar to that of modern feminists; given the term “chairman,” they immediately create “chairwoman” as a counterpart. The *I Ching* author clearly thought that simply mentioning an old man and a young wife was unbalanced; the use of “old woman and young husband” was necessary to reflect the reality of gender equality. The *Jia Ren* hexagram says, “The woman is in the inner position, the man is in the outer position.” Ancient marital relationships lacked modern legal guarantees and were relatively free, resulting in close relationships between children and their mothers. In early ancient society, men and women were equal, but the elderly grandmother may have been the social cohesion center, while interactions with other clans were handled by men. That is, “The woman is in the inner position, the man is in the outer position.”

6) Confucius said, “The ruler should act as a ruler, the minister as a minister, the father as a father, and the son as a son.” The above sufficiently illustrates that maintaining the relationship between ruler and minister depends on the ruler constantly appeasing the minister. What about the relationship between father and son? The *I Ching* of the early Zhou Dynasty clearly incorporated more egalitarian ideas. The eighteenth hexagram is the *Gu* hexagram, which means to rectify chaos. Of the six lines in this hexagram, four are about rectifying the father’s chaos, one is about rectifying the mother’s chaos, and the last line says, “Not serving kings and lords, yet upholding high principles,” and “Not serving kings and lords, yet having a virtuous will.” This hexagram precisely reflects this anarchistic thought of early society.

VI. The Anarchist Thought of Confucius and Mencius

From the above, we can see that Confucius not only did not criticize the anarchic social reality of the Three Dynasties period, but instead used it as a model for society. His actions were merely, like those of his predecessors in Confucianism, using morality and ritual to advocate for social order in anarchic societies. The only difference is that Confucius had entered the so-called Axial Age, when human thought had reached a philosophical level for the first time, and Confucius was no exception. He expressed the ideas of his predecessors in a more profound, systematic, and comprehensive way, thus establishing Confucian philosophy. It is precisely for this reason that Confucius said he transmitted but did not create.

1) Like Laozi, Confucius envisioned the ancient, primordial society as his ideal society, a world of Great Harmony. Confucius’s concept of Great Harmony is found in the *Book of Rites*, which contains later additions. In other words, the concept of Great Harmony better summarizes Confucius’s political ideals; even later additions are merely summaries of his thought. Mencius, though not advocating Great Harmony, went further than Confucius on the path of political idealization. Confucius had not yet condemned the Five Hegemons, even praising Guan Zhong and Duke Huan of Qi (14:18, *Analects*, Chapter 14, Section 18, hereinafter the same), while Mencius said the Five Hegemons were the sinners of the Three Kings (Gaozi II). Mencius developed Confucius’s doctrine of benevolence into a doctrine of benevolent governance, interpreting benevolence as compassion and advocating for the unification of the world through such benevolent governance.

2) Confucius truly wanted to establish a society without punishment and litigation, and this might have been achieved during the reigns of Emperors Cheng and Kang: Two thousand years ago, Confucius vehemently opposed executions. He said, “If a virtuous person governs a state for a hundred years, cruelty and killing can be overcome.” How true these words are! When the ruler of Lu, the Ji family, wanted to use the virtuous to kill the wicked, Confucius said, “Why use killing in governance?” The Ji family worried about too many thieves, and Confucius said, “If you do not desire it, even if you reward theft, people will not steal.” (13:13, 12:19, 12:18) If those in power are not greedy, even if theft is rewarded, people will not steal.

Once, Zigong said, “I do not wish others to impose upon me, nor do I wish to impose upon others.” Zigong enjoyed business, and transactions are generally based on equality and free will, making it easy to avoid imposing one’s will. However, in complex social situations, it’s difficult to guarantee that no one will be forced into anything. Therefore, Confucius replied, “This is beyond your reach.” It’s not something an individual can achieve. Confucius may have considered thieves and the immoral with the same mindset, believing that they also have social conditions beyond their control. Furthermore, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” also carries an opposition to execution: if you don’t want to be killed yourself, then don’t kill others. Confucius also said, “In hearing lawsuits, I am no different from others; my aim is to eliminate lawsuits altogether!” A society without punishment and litigation cannot have a true state and government.

Mencius developed Confucius’s ideal society, based on a primitive society, into a political philosophy centered on the people and adhering to the position of the masses to adapt to the reality of class differentiation. He advocated “the people are the most important,” while the king and the state (ruler, altars of the state) were not crucial. He opposed tyrants and supported revolution, exhibiting a strong revolutionary character. Anarchism and revolution are not contradictory.

3) The essence of Confucius’s virtuous governance is anarchism: Confucius said, “Governing with virtue is like the North Star, which remains in its place while all the other stars revolve around it.” He also said, “If you guide them by laws and regulate them by punishments, the people will avoid punishment but have no sense of shame. If you guide them by virtue and regulate them by rites, they will have a sense of shame and moreover become good.” (2:1, 2:3) If virtue is used as the standard for social measurement to establish a state, virtue should have a strict definition and be divided into several levels. There should be fixed social procedures to determine which level of virtue a person’s behavior belongs to, and to use this as the basis for rewards and punishments. Only such virtuous governance can establish a two-tiered social regime. The core of Confucius’s virtuous governance is based on benevolence. Confucius explained benevolence many times, but there was no precise definition. Because in the Analects, benevolence and humanity are interchangeable, and Mencius said that benevolence is humanity, the core of Confucius’s virtuous governance is simply emphasizing human nature. Because Confucius saw the chaotic state of society, he emphasized the benevolent aspect of human nature.

Mencius said to King Hui of Liang, “Why must Your Majesty speak of profit? There is only benevolence and righteousness!” As Marx revealed, the key to establishing a state lies in a certain economic foundation to maintain the interests of the exploiting class—the very “profit” that Mencius opposed. Even politics cannot replace this “profit” as an economic foundation, let alone benevolence and righteousness. Mencius’s ideal of a society based on benevolence and righteousness can only lead to anarchy.

4) Confucius’s model politics was only suitable for the circle of primitive society: Confucius’s advocacy of replacing managerial politics with model politics is strong evidence that the main social life level before the Warring States period in China was primitive society. Confucius, who once served as the acting prime minister of the State of Lu, strongly advocated model politics, saying that rulers only need to manage themselves. He said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead with uprightness, who would dare not be upright? If one’s own conduct is upright, one’s orders will be followed without being given; if one’s own conduct is not upright, one’s orders will not be followed even if given.” He also said, “If one can rectify oneself, what difficulty is there in governing? If one cannot rectify oneself, how can one rectify others?” (12:17, 13:6, 13:13) Some translations render “What difficulty is there in governing?” as “What difficulty is there in governing?”, reflecting the disbelief of people with secondary social experience in Confucius’s words. In fact, Confucius meant that once a model is set up, there is no need for any management.

It is worth mentioning that Confucius’s political example was two-way: leaders set an example for their members, and members set an example for their leaders. Therefore, when someone asked Confucius why he didn’t enter politics, he replied, “The Book of Documents says: ‘Filial piety, indeed, filial piety; brotherly love, applied to governance.’ This too is governance; what else is governance?” (2:21) In other words, Confucius believed that setting an example at home to influence those who entered politics was itself a form of governance. If national governance can be replaced by the harmony of an ordinary family, then such a so-called “state” can only be anarchy.

Mencius also spoke of the politics of example, saying, “If the ruler is benevolent, none will be unbenevolent; if the ruler is righteous, none will be unrighteous; if the ruler is upright, none will be unupright. If the ruler is upright, the state will be at peace. If one’s own conduct is upright, the world will submit to him.” (Li Lou, Part 1)

5) Confucius’s image of the gentleman is that of a libertarian: Rousseau (1712-1778) famously said, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains,” a statement considered a manifesto of anarchism. A secondary society is like a ship without a fixed direction at sea; not everyone on board has the freedom to choose their course. As Marx revealed the laws of human social development: the stages of slavery, feudalism, and capitalism are not the free choice of any individual. Once a secondary society is chosen, its future development is not in human control. In short, members of a secondary society have an obligation to obey demands external to them, whether these demands are law, power, or God. Due to the unique nature of ancient Chinese society, Confucius did not clearly understand this point. While the gentleman he depicted was a moral exemplar, he exhibited tendencies toward anarchist libertarianism.

Confucius’s image of the gentleman is closer to aesthetic pursuits, lacking objective standards, requiring no social recognition or “gentleman’s certificate,” and having no utilitarian purpose. Although Confucius tirelessly discussed the Six Virtues and Six Obscurities, the Five Virtues and Four Evils, the Three Friends and Three Fears, the Nine Considerations, etc. (17:18, 20:7, 16:4-10, 17:6), it was less a self-imposed requirement within the small circle of Confucian gentlemen and more a form of self-promotion and self-amusement. In doing so, they broadened the distance between themselves and the general public. Confucius and Mencius contrasted the gentleman with the petty person, thus expanding the scope of the so-called petty person. Confucius called his disciple Fan Xu a petty person because he asked about farming. Confucius even said, “Those who are always true to their word and resolute in their actions are petty people,” and that those in politics at the time were all petty people: “What are such insignificant people worth considering!” (13:20) Such indiscriminate labeling demonstrates that Confucius was an extreme liberal whose pronouncements were limited to aesthetic value and applied only to primitive societies, thus disregarding the principles of keeping one’s word and fulfilling one’s duties. This is similar to the libertarians in modern anarchism who base their views on intuition.

Mencius further developed Confucius’s idea of ​​not adhering to the principle of “words must be trustworthy and actions must be resolute,” transforming it into a unique doctrine within a secondary society. This doctrine upholds the original societal stance based on human nature in the face of the alienation of humanity in secondary societies, emphasizing inner sincerity and disregarding societal standards. Mencius said, “A great man is one who does not lose his childlike heart. A great man does not necessarily keep his word or carry out his actions; he only acts according to righteousness.” (Mencius: Li Lou II) It is evident that the free will of Confucius and Mencius is not bound by any legal provisions or behavioral norms of secondary societies, disregarding social effects and focusing only on the natural beauty of human nature. If Mencius’s purely aesthetic ideal of a great man, disregarding consequences, leads to social disaster, how would he have dealt with it? We cannot know. The late Qing Dynasty novel *The Travels of Lao Can* specifically discusses the issue that honest officials are more harmful than corrupt officials: honest officials are self-righteous and disregard consequences, while corrupt officials, aware of their wrongdoing, are cautious in all matters.

6) Confucius’s personal conduct was close to that of a liberal: Confucius emphasized individual will and did not respect any political power. He did not believe in the idea that the individual should submit to power external to others, including laws, the demands of social existence itself, and the will of God. Confucius stressed, “Those who follow different paths cannot make plans together,” and “If serving one’s ruler with the Way is not possible, then one should stop” (15:39, 11:23). He also looked down on contemporary politicians, calling them “petty people.” Therefore, Confucius was passionate about politics throughout his life but did not achieve his goals.

Confucius lived in the late Spring and Autumn Period, a time when the framework of a primitive, superpower-like society still existed. Farmers could migrate freely, and the monarch’s power was greatly constrained. Furthermore, due to the strong cultural traditions inherited over thousands of years, Confucianism was considered orthodox. He traveled to various states, encountering setbacks everywhere, but his reputation only grew. One can imagine that the rulers of various states would try their best to accommodate him, especially the state of Lu, which had a strong tradition of Zhou rituals. Confucius’s insistence on his free will and ideals, refusing to compromise with reality, ultimately led to his political downfall.

Confucius, while upholding the ideal political blueprint of free will, also demonstrated boldness, pragmatism, and even disregard for personal moral principles in his actions. Confucius said: “If there is a true king, it will take generations before benevolence is realized.” (13:12) This shows that he recognized his ideal could not be achieved in a short time, and also indicates that Confucius did not regard the Zhou king of his time as a true king. Therefore, his restoration of Zhou rites was not achieved through the Zhou dynasty, and his travels through the states did not involve paying homage to the emperor. So who did Confucius consider the true king? The answer is himself. Such lofty ideals and aspirations enabled Confucius to display his bold and pragmatic side. When Gongshan Furao rebelled in Philadelphia and invited Confucius to join him, Zilu was displeased, but Confucius said: “Those who summon me, are they doing so for no reason? If someone would employ me, I would restore the Eastern Zhou!” Here, Confucius clearly intended to emulate the revolutions of Tang and Wu and establish a new Zhou dynasty. (17:5) Similarly, when subordinates rebelled, Confucius, during his travels through the states, agreed to the demands of the rebels in Pu, Wei, but then failed to keep them, which instead prompted the ruler of Wei to send troops to suppress them. This shows that, apart from practicality, Confucius did not have objective moral standards.

Confucius, as a key minister of the State of Lu, was displeased that the Duke of Lu accepted beautiful women and horses from the State of Qi. In today’s terms, Confucius could have offered criticism, but ultimately, the Duke’s decision on whether to accept the gifts rested with him, and as a subject, Confucius had an obligation to accept the Duke’s decision. According to historical records, Confucius left Lu without even saying goodbye, leading his students away. The Prime Minister of Lu had to send someone under the guise of seeing him off to inquire about the reason for Confucius’s displeasure. Confucius’s behavior exhibited strong liberal characteristics.

Confucius’s attitude toward these rebellions revealed his most valuable aspect: the inclusive idea of ​​a unified society in the early days, which was not found in Mencius and Xunzi later. [11] When a rebellious retainer of the State of Jin invited Confucius, he answered the criticism of his disciples by saying, “Is it not said that it is firm, yet it is not stained by grinding; is it not said that it is white, yet it is not stained by mud? Am I a gourd? How can I be tied up and not eaten?” (17:7) Confucius said that even if he worked with these people, his purity would not be stained by their filth. This suggests that the government at that time tolerated people with different ideas. The change of emperors and ministers was a result of later political development and differentiation, and it was not applicable to Confucius’s time. Young people like Zilu were more receptive to new ideas, while Confucius insisted on the old traditions.

Mencius lacked the inclusive and unified thought of Confucius[11], but his personal behavior was more liberal. According to Huang Renyu, Mencius did not pay as much attention to the constraints of etiquette as Confucius, and had more freedom: when King Xuan of Qi was sick, he also claimed to be sick; when he met King Hui of Liang, he said as soon as he came out, “He does not look like a ruler.”[12]

7) Confucius’s anarchism was based on the small collectives of primitive society, thus advocating the separation of superiors and inferiors: Confucius advocated separating the upper elites from the common people, namely, “the superiors know the inferiors, the inferiors are ignorant,” “they are made to follow the rules but not to know them,” and “the common people are not allowed to discuss them,” etc. (17:3, 8:9, 16:2), which is often mistakenly interpreted as class division in the state. This separation system of Confucius should not be regarded as the ideology of an unequal ruling class. The peasants’ right to free migration, that is, the peasants’ freedom to choose their state, is essentially similar to Western democratic elections. Western democratic elections select one from among the candidates, while the ancient Chinese peasants’ choice of state did not eliminate anyone; it was a process of mutual selection, where everyone got what they deserved. Therefore, Confucius said, “Revive extinct states, continue interrupted lineages, and promote those who have been neglected.” (20:4) This shows the essential difference between primitive society and secondary society. The former is all-encompassing and enjoys life; the latter selects and eliminates, and as Marx revealed, people become slaves to the alienating forces of society.

In Mencius’s time, class antagonism had already emerged, and the position of the exploiting class was guaranteed by its monopoly on land and military power. Therefore, Mencius, standing on the side of the common people, resolutely opposed the ruling class. Aside from sharing Confucius’s preference for antiquity over the present, Mencius did not propose a feasible two-tiered social system to guarantee the interests of the masses. Instead, he supported lower-level revolutions to overthrow tyrants and supported the power of ministers to abandon and depose their rulers, thus deterring the ruling class and making them more cautious. If the ruled were to truly act according to Mencius’s teachings, the result could only be anarchic social chaos.

VII. The Historical Influence of Confucian and Mencian Anarchist Thought

If we consider the presence or absence of government as the distinction between secondary societies and primitive societies, Aristotle’s statement, “Man is a political animal,” best illustrates the different historical trajectories of the East and West. Western secondary societies, from the outset, followed a path of organizing people’s leisure time to pursue material civilization—that is, the pursuit of profit. Here, leisure time refers to the time remaining after basic physiological needs are met. Aristotle’s term “animal” clearly refers to human material desires; Laozi and Zhuangzi viewed animals as role models for humanity. Animals use all their leisure time for relaxation and rest, and humans should do the same—a broad pursuit of aesthetics: including rest, relaxation, appreciating the surrounding world, and collective and individual entertainment. On a higher level, this includes art, religion, philosophy, and also morality and principles. Confucius and Mencius emphasized morality and principles while also stressing self-pleasure and beauty.

The Lao-Zhuang and Confucian-Mencian doctrines, based on human nature, possess a powerful appeal to humanity, blocking the path of Western material civilization. The concept of mutual restraint and balance of power within the framework of material civilization was extremely underdeveloped in China. During the Warring States period, the Qin state, despite its cultural backwardness, rose to prominence by organizing society based on material interests, becoming wealthy and powerful. Even when threatened by the other six states, it did not abandon the Lao-Zhuang and Confucian doctrines of unification based on human nature, and to some extent still dreamed of ruling the world with benevolence and righteousness. They never realized that without a mature system, benevolence and righteousness can only be defeated by power. If they had established standards and systems for judging benevolence and righteousness, with violators facing universal condemnation; if they had followed the Qin path, like the West, where shared pursuits led to balance and the equal distribution of benefits, gradually developing secondary social rules and structures, Chinese history would have been entirely different.

Due to the anarchist tendencies of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Confucius, and Mencius, China lagged behind the West in the establishment of its states and the improvement of its systems. Conversely, it was ahead of the West in areas such as humanity, justice, equality, and the interests of all citizens. For example, the imperial examination system for government officials did not test national governance skills but rather the doctrines of humanity, benevolence, and righteousness of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Confucius, and Mencius. Chinese history is almost entirely a long period of unified rule; the West only achieved a few hundred years of Mediterranean unification under the Roman Empire, and was still in conflict with Persia and India.

Laozi and Zhuangzi and Confucius and Mencius were based on peasant community life, so peasant life in Chinese history did not change much, but local power gradually diminished and peasants were placed directly under the emperor. The Song Dynasty was threatened by the northern barbarian states, so centralization intensified and local powers such as the princes eventually collapsed. Although the governments of Western countries also increased dramatically in modern times, their functions and responsibilities were greatly expanded. The small size of the Chinese government and the large population it managed in history amazed Western scholars. John King Fairbank said, “Nowhere else has there been an example of so few people ruling so many people for such a long period of time.” He also said, “Although it created a self-sufficient and enduring Chinese civilization, it did not organize into a single-ethnic state under the leadership of a government that was willing to pursue progress.” Fairbank provided the number of registered officials as: 18,000 in the Tang Dynasty; 20,000 in the Song Dynasty; and 20,000 in the Qing Dynasty. Fairbank exclaimed: “More than a hundred years ago, there were less than 20,000 regular officials in a country with a population of more than 400 million.” [13] This is the historical impact of Confucian and Mencian anarchism. In reality, the governments of Chinese history largely aligned with the views of some modern anarchists, who advocated for minimal government, limiting its functions to protecting the people and maintaining social stability. This was precisely the kind of government envisioned by Confucius and Mencius.

William T. Rowe argues that if large-scale social production that extends far beyond the family level and uses hired labor is called capitalism, then capitalism had already emerged in China by the end of the Ming Dynasty. It was indigenous and not imported from the West. Western capitalism emerged simultaneously with the emergence of the modern state, while the emergence of the modern state in China lagged behind capitalism by at least three centuries. Commercial towns and suburbs that emerged in various parts of China relied on spontaneous organizations such as trade associations for coordination and management for a long time, lacking government intervention. Rowe attributes this difference between East and West to different cultures, with Confucius and Mencius favoring small government operations. [14]

8. Mencius (c. 372-289 BC), Zhuangzi (c. 369-286 BC), and Diogenes (c. 400-325 BC)

Diogenes was one of the earliest Western thinkers to exhibit anarchist tendencies. Coincidentally, he lived in the same era as Mencius and Zhuangzi. They all lived after the establishment of a two-tiered society, facing class division and the alienation of humanity. They all expressed their dissatisfaction with society through unconventional behavior, self-righteousness, and contempt for authority. Mencius is known for his self-proclaimed moral superiority, Zhuangzi for his reclusive life of self-contentment, while Diogenes is known for his unorthodox behavior.

Mencius lived during the Warring States period, a time when the two-tiered social structure was firmly established, and the power and cruelty of social authority were readily apparent. Mencius represented those who continued to pursue Confucian ideals within this structure. He guided Confucianism towards a philosophy of mind, providing believers with a lofty spiritual anchor—a religious function within the two-tiered society. He elevated Confucian political thought to a higher level to adapt to the realities of this society, thus distinguishing himself from other schools of thought of his time. His self-proclaimed moral high standards were unparalleled before or since.

Mencius said, “I am good at cultivating my vast and righteous spirit. This spirit is supremely great and strong. If it is cultivated with uprightness and without harm, it will fill the space between heaven and earth. This spirit is matched with righteousness and the Way; without these, it will wither. It is born from the accumulation of righteousness, not something that can be seized by force. If one’s actions do not align with one’s conscience, then one will wither. Mencius said that a great man embodies the Way: He dwells in the broadest dwelling place of the world, stands in the most upright position of the world, and walks the greatest path of the world. When he achieves his ambitions, he leads the people to follow him; when he does not achieve his ambitions, he walks his Way alone. Wealth and honor cannot corrupt him, poverty and hardship cannot sway him, and power and force cannot subdue him. This is what is meant by a great man.” Mencius also said, “Fish is what I desire; bear’s paw is also what I desire. If I cannot have both, I will give up fish and take bear’s paw. Life is what I desire; righteousness is also what I desire. If I cannot have both, I will give up life and take righteousness.” (Gongsun Chou, Part 1; Teng Wen Gong, Part 2; Gaozi, Part 1)

It’s inevitable that someone who thinks so highly of themselves will despise the powerful and wealthy. One day, Mencius was about to meet the King of Qi when the king sent a messenger saying, “The King of Qi originally planned to visit you, but unfortunately he has caught a cold and is sensitive to wind, so he cannot go out. If you would deign to come to the palace, the King of Qi will receive you in court.” Mencius was displeased and said, “Unfortunately, I am also ill and cannot go.” The next day, the King of Qi sent a messenger with a doctor to inquire about Mencius’s illness, but Mencius had already left. His family could only say, “Mencius was ill yesterday, but he is better today and is on his way to see the King.” Then they sent many people to find Mencius and urge him to go to the palace immediately to meet the King of Qi. Mencius, however, hid at a friend’s house for the night to avoid being dragged to the King by his family. Mencius’s friend disapproved of his behavior, saying, “Internally, there is the relationship between father and son; externally, there is the relationship between ruler and subject. These are the great principles of human relations. Father and son should be based on kindness, and ruler and subject on respect.” The ugly man saw the king’s respect for his son, but he did not see how the king showed respect to him.

Mencius retorted, “What nonsense! No one in Qi can speak of benevolence and righteousness to the king. Does this mean they consider benevolence and righteousness unworthy? They think to themselves, ‘How can one speak of benevolence and righteousness with such a person?’ Such disrespect is the greatest of all. I do not follow the ways of Yao and Shun, and dare not present them before the king. Therefore, no one in Qi respects the king more than I do.” (Gongsun Chou, Part 2)

This story reveals that Mencius was the only one in the entire state of Qi who spoke empty and impractical doctrines of benevolence and righteousness before the king, acting arrogantly and keeping the king’s messengers, doctors, and family in a state of frantic activity. For Mencius, this was merely a display of his own unyielding and masculine spirit. As the dominant school of thought at the time, the teachings of benevolence and righteousness were widely known; the king listened to Mencius’s repeated pronouncements only out of fear of his reputation. Analyzing this single incident, the only loss was in the social benefits, and the cause lay entirely with Mencius. Mencius also said that those who do not delight in killing can unify the world. In reality, there are many who do not delight in killing, but unfortunately, many more act first out of fear of being killed. Zhuangzi said, “He who steals a hook is punished, he who steals a state becomes a prince; at the gates of princes, benevolence and righteousness reside.” Mencius’s urgent task was either to establish objective standards of benevolence and righteousness or to follow the path of Western Christianity, but he had no interest in either, hence his doctrines were considered pedantic.

Zhuangzi distanced himself from worldly society, and his state of mind was far more serene than Mencius’. It is said that when the King of Chu sent envoys to invite him to serve as an official in Chu, he was fishing and refused without even looking up. When he visited the palace of the King of Wei, he wore tattered clothes, his shoes worn out and tied with hemp rope. He even sang a song after his wife’s death, instructing his disciples to throw his body into the wilderness after his own demise. This might seem excessive to ordinary people, but it was Zhuangzi’s genuine belief, and there was nothing wrong with it. When someone received a reward from the King of Qin and boasted about it to Zhuangzi, he was ridiculed, saying: “That was probably from licking the King of Qin’s hemorrhoids.” This shows that Daoist figures still retained the tolerant spirit of early society, which is why they later developed the practice of slow, deliberate alchemy in pursuit of immortality.

While Mencius’s philosophical system can be termed a secondary social philosophy, like Zhuangzi’s, it is entirely based on primordial society. Diogenes, however, is the true thinker of a secondary social system. In his youth, Diogenes consulted the gods at Delphi, who told him he must disfigure metal coins. He interpreted this as not wanting him to disfigure real currency, but rather the currency of contemporary politics—human hypocrisy. He then traveled far and wide, challenging the customs and values ​​of his time, arguing that this was the true counterfeit currency of human morality. Once, he walked the streets in broad daylight with a lantern, saying he was searching for sincere people. He masturbated in public in the marketplace, saying he hoped this would end his hunger. He criticized human folly, vanity, self-deception, and so on, believing that most human behavior was hypocritical and pretentious. This reveals two aspects of Diogenes that are absent in Chinese thought: first, his ideas originated from a world external to humanity, from the gods; second, he held a completely negative view of humanity, attacking ordinary people. These are all characteristics of secondary social thought.

Like the Daoists, Diogenes saw the humorous side of human life on Earth. When he was captured by pirates and sold into slavery, he said he wished to be sold to someone who needed a master. One day, Diogenes was resting in the sun, with all his possessions beside him: a barrel for his house, a walking stick, and a bowl. Alexander the Great came along, saw this eccentric philosopher, and was delighted. He asked Diogenes if there was anything he could help with. Diogenes immediately replied, “There is something I need your help with: please move, you are blocking my sunlight.” Afterwards, Alexander the Great was deeply moved and said, “If I were not Alexander the Great, I would like to be Diogenes.”

As he lay dying, Diogenes left a will stating that he wished to be thrown outside the city walls after his death to be feasted on by wild beasts. When asked if he minded being devoured by animals after his death, he replied, “I don’t care, just give me a stick, and I’ll use it to chase them away.”

In short, Mencius, Zhuangzi, and Diogenes all leaned towards anarchy, believing that human happiness was unrelated to an individual’s material conditions. Mencius pursued the perfection of his own morality, a kind of ethical religion. Zhuangzi and Diogenes believed that happiness and morality came from returning to simplicity and authenticity, incompatible with the hypocrisy of society. Only Diogenes used bizarre behavior to publicly ridicule corrupt and incompetent rulers; this approach would have been ineffective in contemporary China. Conversely, the social effect of Mencius and Zhuangzi’s actions was merely to numb the people’s fighting spirit, favoring the opposite direction—the ultimate unification of China by material power. Diogenes’ actions, however, might have influenced the direction of society to some extent, because a typical secondary society is a contest between various social orientations. Only Alexander the Great expressed a willingness to be like Diogenes; neither the King of Qi nor the King of Chu intended to be like Mencius or Zhuangzi. Diogenes is revered as the founder of Cynicism; Cynicism originally meant living like a dog, but modern Western scholars still consider it one of the most effective ways to criticize society. Chinese Daoists genuinely admire animals, viewing them as pure and innocent, serving as role models for humanity. We could also say that Zhuangzi was a prehistoric, natural dog, Mencius a domesticated dog, and Diogenes a symbolic dog—a political symbol expressing personal opinions in a secondary society.

IX. Measurement of the Degree of Subjective Consciousness Expression in Eastern and Western History [15]

The differences between Mencius, Zhuangzi, and Diogenes further demonstrate that Western civilization began in a secondary society, while Chinese civilization began in a primordial society. The cultural fusion and the global village phenomenon more than two thousand years later have led us to roughly similar social lives. Considering the vast difference between primordial and secondary societies, the East and West could only have achieved their current similarity by following diametrically opposed historical development paths: the West is returning to a primordial society, that is, making adjustments to a secondary society to suit human nature; China is evolving towards a secondary society. Here, the historical metric of subjective expression is used to confirm the existence of this opposite process.

Expressivity is a genetic term that refers to the degree to which a gene is expressed in an individual organism. Here it is used to represent the degree to which the subjective consciousness determined by heredity is expressed in a person’s life, and is referred to as subject expression. The author has specifically argued that subjective consciousness can occur in primitive societies and that the evolutionary paths of the occurrence and development of subjective consciousness in the East and West are different. [16] The linguistic word “I” representing the subject is directly related to the expression of subjective consciousness. This paper uses the frequency of the word “I” in poetry to represent subject expression. Poetry is a literary form that conveys emotions and directly depicts the author’s subjective thoughts. The frequency of the word “I” in poetry is affected by many uncontrollable factors, such as the theme and content of the poem, but as long as we examine a sufficient number of poets and a sufficient number of poems, a meaningful historical trend will emerge.

1) The Suppression of Subjective Consciousness Expression in Secondary Societies: Secondary societies are not inherent to humankind; they are artificially created to serve specific purposes and do not concern themselves with the expression of human subjective consciousness. Primitive society is like a home today, where speech is casual, natural, and unrestrained. In secondary societies, people must adhere to social norms, and the content must be consistent with the occasion. In short, compared to primitive society, the degree of subjective expression should be significantly reduced in secondary societies. Another description of this trend is found in Marxist theories of state dictatorship, which describe the process from the masters of primitive communist society becoming the objects of state dictatorship.

The Chinese classic *Classic of Poetry* is divided into four parts: *Feng* (folk songs), *Xiaoya* (minor odes), *Daya* (major odes), and *Song* (hymns). Generally speaking, *Feng* consists of rural folk songs, *Xiaoya* was written by minor officials, *Daya* by high-ranking officials of the imperial court, and *Song* by high-ranking officials of the imperial court and the king himself. The progression from *Feng*, *Xiaoya*, *Daya*, to *Song* represents a gradual departure from the original society and a move towards a secondary society. The author’s statistics show that the frequencies of the character “我” (including *吾*, *朕*, and *余*) are 2.5%, 2.2%, 0.91%, and 1.1% respectively; the human/deity ratios are 7.3%, 1.3%, 0.42%, and 0.18 respectively.

In Chinese history, there is a saying that talents go north and politics go south. It is said that the culture level in the south is higher, while the nomadic peoples in the north are still tribal organizations. They constantly invade the south and gradually migrate south after accepting the culture of the Central Plains. Therefore, the south is closer to a secondary society, while the north is closer to a primitive society. The author examined the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Northern and Southern Song Dynasties, and the Wei Dynasty in the north and the Jin Dynasty in the south after the fall of the Han Dynasty. In all three pairs, the north had a higher degree of subjectivity than the south. The above is enough to show that the secondary society has a serious suppressive effect on the expression of subjectivity. [15]

2) Subjective Expression in Western History: The author examined ancient Greek, ancient Roman, and English poetry (1343-1932), dividing all of them into two parts. The subjective expression in all three was lower in the first part and higher in the second. The results are listed below:

Poetry of the Times ° I ± Frequency Statistical Significance

Ancient Greece 0.91% vs. 1.92% P<0.005; Ancient Rome 0.29% vs. 1.07% P<0.005; English poetry 1.13% vs. 1.44% P<0.005. While ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the modern English-speaking world are interconnected, they are actually three distinct cultural constructs. The Roman Empire was undoubtedly a more repressive cultural construct, with the lowest degree of subjective expression. [15] 3) Evolution of Subjective Expression in Chinese History Frequency of the Character "我" (我、朕、余、吾) in Chinese Poetry in Chinese History Table of Total Number of Characters in Each Era Subjective "我" Genitive "我" Objective "我" Total Number; Percentage Book of Songs 31140 190 221 185 596; 1.9% Qu Yuan 12107 90 46 50 186; 1.5% Six Dynasties 24491 76 91 58 225; 0.92% Tang Dynasty 22690 34 24 12 70; 0.31% Song Dynasty 5875 10 5 2 17; 0.29% Yuan Dynasty 3104 1 2 3 6; 0.19% Ming Dynasty 3911 3 6 1 10; 0.26% Qing Dynasty 9489 12 7 5 24; 0.13% Note: The specific dates in the table above are: Book of Songs, 1122-476 BC; Qu Yuan, 352-278 BC; Six Dynasties, 206 BC-589 BC; Tang Dynasty, 618-907 BC; Song Dynasty, 960-1279 BC; Yuan Dynasty, 1271-1368 BC; Ming Dynasty, 1368-1644 BC; Qing Dynasty, 1644-1911 BC. The table clearly shows a decreasing trend in the degree of subjective expression, with the lowest values ​​observed in the Yuan and Qing Dynasties. This is obviously related to the suppression of Han Chinese intellectuals under foreign rule. The transformation of Tang Dynasty poetry into regulated verse, emphasizing meter and rhyme, was accompanied by a significant decrease in subjective expression. This could be explained by the limitations of the meter, the deterioration of the social environment, or perhaps both, with each influencing the other. Compared to Europe, the degree of subjective expression in China after the Tang Dynasty was comparable to that of early ancient Rome, while the period of the Book of Songs was comparable to that of late ancient Greece. Comparing different languages ​​is difficult, and standards cannot be unified; therefore, the term "comparable" is used here. Few poems from the Warring States period survive, with Qu Yuan being an exception. Qu Yuan's poetry truly emerged as a unique force, unmatched by any poet before or after him. Qu Yuan ended his life by suicide, and modern Western psychological research shows that suicidal poets used more subjective "I" and fewer objective "I." This phenomenon among modern Western poets clearly also applies to Qu Yuan in ancient China. Qu Yuan's works are essentially egocentric fantasies; he wandered alone in his fantasies of heaven and earth, never considering chatting with friends along the way. The ratio of subjective to objective "I" in Qu Yuan's works, the *Classic of Poetry*, the Six Dynasties, and the Tang Dynasty and later were: 1.8 (90/50), 1.03 (190/185), 1.3 (76/58), and 2.6 (60/23), respectively. The differences in this ratio between Qu Yuan and the *Classic of Poetry*, and between the Tang Dynasty and later periods, are statistically significant (P<0.01). That is to say, not only did the subjective expression significantly decrease after the Tang Dynasty, but the ratio of subjective to objective "I" also became similar to that of suicidal poets. The reasons for this are worth further study. 4) Preliminary explanation: I will try to explain the changes in the subject expression here. Marxism interprets the history of human civilization as the history of class oppression and the history of alienation of human nature. Modern scholar William Eckhardt's research found that five thousand years of world civilization is a history of escalating wars. He found that civilization, empire and war are mutually causal and lead to the expansion of social inequality. [17] Marx believed that in the future, we will return to the prehistoric communist society, but with the great abundance of material resources. In recent years, the progress of anthropological research has made it clear that the primitive people of South Africa, the Kunsan, lived in a great abundance of material resources. They had vast land and sparse population, and food was readily available. They spent most of their time wandering, visiting each other, and chatting. They were well-nourished and healthy. Many pieces of evidence show that this was the life of prehistoric hunter-gatherer humans: 30,000 years ago, the average height of adult men was 177 cm and that of women was 165 cm; while in 1960, the average height of American men was 175 cm and that of women was 153 cm. Numerous pieces of evidence show that 30,000 years ago, humans knew how to control reproduction. [18] The East and the West have followed different historical development processes. Western civilization began with a brutal secondary society, characterized by exploitation, war, and wealth accumulation, before seeking improvement and the emergence of Christian-style humanism. Modern development has led to the development of human rights and democracy, which is why capitalist society is regarded as anarchism by the Chinese. Ancient China began with a primitive society, where the social environment may have been relatively good for a long time. For the first forty years of the Zhou Dynasty, no punishments were used; Mencius said that King Wu of Zhou only used three thousand men to conquer the Shang Dynasty. It is generally believed that the war to destroy the Shang Dynasty lasted only one day, as the Shang soldiers defected one after another, and apart from King Zhou of Shang committing suicide, it is possible that there were no casualties. This is not much different from the contemporary Western electoral system that peacefully transfers power. Two presidents of the United States have been assassinated, and one election led to the outbreak of civil war. The ancient Greek Trojan War, which was close to the Shang Dynasty, lasted for ten years. After the city was captured, all the men were killed, and the women and children were transported back to be sold to slave traders. Anthropological research has found that the invention of agriculture and the establishment of Middle Eastern countries have both led to a shortening of human lifespan. Confucius mentioned three times in the Analects that he should use virtuous governance to attract farmers from afar to join him. Confucius once said that farmers would come carrying infants, and another time he said that the Confucian advocacy of a three-year filial piety period stemmed from the fact that humans are not separated from their parents for the first three years of infancy. Furthermore, King Li of Zhou's attempt to control the mountains and rivers was met with strong opposition from the farmers. These events suggest that farmers were highly mobile at the time, and the existence of vast wastelands allowed for a degree of hunting and gathering. They also suggest that peasant women during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties likely carried their children year-round, indicating that the natural mechanisms of hunting (high-protein diet) and breastfeeding (inhibiting pregnancy) still existed. We can imagine that the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, with their vast lands and sparse populations, did not experience the rapid population growth of civilized societies. These early superpowers maintained relative peace, avoiding the later cycles of dramatic population fluctuations. War has a dual effect: stimulating population growth and causing death. Large-scale wars and famines after the Qin and Han dynasties often led to sudden population declines, such as the halving of the population during the reigns of Emperor Wu and Empress Wu Zetian, as recorded in historical records. According to Chen Ping, such devastating events with more than half the population dying occurred at least ten times in China's two-thousand-year history, while only once in Europe. The population of the Western Han Dynasty, which was 60 million, dwindled to only 2% by the beginning of the Three Kingdoms period. [19] The cost of civilization is so high, the history of state dictatorship revealed by Marx is so tragic, and the people suffer sleepless nights with blood and tears, but there is no record in history. The study of subjectivity only reveals a little information. When Westerners visit religious temples in China, they feel that they are a bit like Disneyland, with red and green colors, colorful and seemingly trying to attract believers. However, compared with the West, they are not successful. Most Chinese people do not have a fixed religious belief. In the rural areas of northern China in the early 1950s, farmers mostly followed local traditions when they were sick, such as summoning the soul and worshipping the immortals, which is exactly the same as the divination of illness in the oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty. Compared with the West, Arab countries, and even India, the religious beliefs of Chinese people are close to anarchy. The government's attitude towards religion is close to Confucius's "respect the ghosts and gods but keep them at a distance" non-intervention, while the intellectual class uses poetry, books, music, painting and Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism to replace religion and seek spiritual comfort. Whether the anarchy of Chinese religion is due to the poor effect of opium, or whether it is related to the decrease in subjectivity after the Tang Dynasty and the subject-object ratio being close to that of suicidal poets, is still inconclusive. In fact, Chinese poetry is fundamentally different from Western poetry[20], especially poetry after the Tang Dynasty, which is detached from the secular landscape and pastoral charm, and combined with the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming Dynasties, and also has an analgesic effect. But compared with the opium effect of religion, it is unknown whether it is high or low. One thing is certain, however, that the Chinese cultural tradition represented by Confucius and Mencius has blurred the understanding of the nature of secondary society, and also blurred the understanding of the tragedy of human beings in secondary society. We cannot deny that the Confucian doctrine of benevolence and righteousness has been effective in reducing the suffering of the people after the Qin and Han Dynasties, but it has not been able to stop the ambition of Emperor Wu of Han and Empress Wu Zetian, which led to a nationwide disaster. It is precisely because of such a cruel social reality that there is a social demand for the Confucian doctrine of benevolence and righteousness after the Qin and Han Dynasties, and that the opium effect of religion is needed. Looking back at Laozi and Zhuangzi's return to simplicity, Confucius's lifelong efforts to restore the Zhou rites, and the consistent condemnation of Qin Shi Huang for two thousand years, we feel that they are not without reason. References [1] Roderick T. Long (2003): Austro-Libertarian themes in early Confucianism. Journal of Libertarian Studies: Volume 17, no. 3 (Summer 2003), p35-62. [2] You Sheng (2010): The concept of a two-tiered society and the complementary Chinese mainstream culture of Confucianism and Taoism. Xue Deng, No. 15 (http:////www.confucius2000.com). [3] Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154. [4] You Sheng (2008): A New Perspective on the Differences Between Eastern and Western Cultures. Xue Deng, No. 6 (http://www.confucius2000.com). [5] Wang Yuzhe (2004): Ancient Chinese History. Shanghai People's Publishing House. [6] Gordon Marshall (1994): The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology: oriental despotism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p373. [7] Xu Baiqing (1999): Advancing with Action and Governing with Inaction—A Brief Discussion on Confucius's Political Thought. Journal of Jianghan Petroleum Institute (Social Sciences Edition). Vol. 1, No. 4, 1999. [8] You Sheng (2009): The Influence of the Primitive Society with Genetic Encoding Before the Warring States Period on Chinese History. [9] Mai Jinheng (2006): The Political Thoughts of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. (http://www.confucius2000.com.cn/html/zhexue/825148.html). [10] You Sheng (2010): The Overall Thought of the Book of Changes and its Relationship with Pre-Qin Confucianism and Taoism. Journal of Learning, No. 16. (http://www.confucius2000.com). [11] You Sheng (2010): On the Inclusive Thought of Confucius's Great Unity and its Influence on Primitive Society. Journal of Learning, No. 14. (http://www.confucius2000.com). [12] Huang Renyu (1989): On Chinese History by the Hudson River: Confucius and Mencius. Taipei: Times. [13] John King Fairbank (1995): John King Fairbank on China. Translated by Xue Xuan, Taipei: Zhengzhong Book Company. (Author's preface and page 105) [14] William T. Rowe (1990): Modern Chinese social history in comparative perspective. In Paul S. Ropp eds, Heritage of China, University of California Press. p242-262. [15] You-Sheng Li (2010): The Ancient Chinese Super State of Primary Societies: Taoist Philosophy for the 21st Century. Bloomington, USA: Author House. p222-230. [16] You-Sheng Li (2008): Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind and a different pathway leading to subjective consciousness in China. (http://taoism21cen.com) [17] William Eckhardt(1995): A dialectical evolutionary theory of civilizations, empires, and wars. In: Civilizations world systems studying world-historical change, ed by SK Sanderson. Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press. p75-108. [18] Marvin Harris (1977): Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House. p4-25. [19] Chen Ping (1979): The single small-scale peasant economy is the root cause of my country's long-term turmoil and poverty. Guangming Daily, November 16, 1979, page 3. [20] You Sheng (2009): From the different attitudes of Confucius and Plato towards the art of poetry, we can see the different artistic thoughts of the two-tier society. Xue Deng, No. 11 (http://www.confucius2000.com).Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind and a different pathway leading to subjective consciousness in China. (http://taoism21cen.com) [17] William Eckhardt (1995): A dialectical evolutionary theory of civilizations, empires, and wars. In: Civilizations world systems studying world-historical change, ed by SK Sanderson. Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press. p75-108. [18] Marvin Harris (1977): Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House. p4-25. [19] Chen Ping (1979): The single small-scale peasant economy is the root cause of my country's long-term turmoil and poverty. Guangming Daily, November 16, 1979, page 3. [20] You Sheng (2009): From the different attitudes of Confucius and Plato towards the art of poetry, we can see the different artistic thoughts of the two-tier society. The 11th issue of "Xue Deng" (http://www.confucius2000.com).Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind and a different pathway leading to subjective consciousness in China. (http://taoism21cen.com) [17] William Eckhardt (1995): A dialectical evolutionary theory of civilizations, empires, and wars. In: Civilizations world systems studying world-historical change, ed by SK Sanderson. Walnut Creek, USA: AltaMira Press. p75-108. [18] Marvin Harris (1977): Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House. p4-25. [19] Chen Ping (1979): The single small-scale peasant economy is the root cause of my country's long-term turmoil and poverty. Guangming Daily, November 16, 1979, page 3. [20] You Sheng (2009): From the different attitudes of Confucius and Plato towards the art of poetry, we can see the different artistic thoughts of the two-tier society. The 11th issue of "Xue Deng" (http://www.confucius2000.com).

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share