Confucius and Mencius from the Perspective of Anarchist Ideology

Li Yousheng

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 liberal behaviors. This anarchic social order in ancient China was based on a primitive social superpower: the separation of upper and lower classes and the balance between local power allowed the Chinese to remain at a primitive social level even after entering civilization. The author cites the *I Ching* to illustrate the individualistic anarchist tendencies in primitive society. The social lifestyle of this primitive social superpower can be summarized by the complementarity of Confucianism and Taoism; therefore, Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Confucius and Mencius all possessed anarchist tendencies. This paper lists and analyzes 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 states that the West began with a secondary society of a typical state, and its historical development subsequently returned to a primitive society; China, on the contrary, began with anarchy and gradually evolved towards centralization and a typical state. The author uses the frequency of the word “I” in poetry to represent the degree of subjective expression in order to examine the Marxist theory of state dictatorship. He finds that the historical trends in the East and West are opposite: Western history shows an increase in the degree of subjective expression, while the degree and persistence of the decline in the degree of subjective expression in China over three thousand years is impressive. After the Tang Dynasty, the ratio of the word “I” in poetry to the subjective and objective elements is similar to that of the suicidal poet Qu Yuan, which makes people wonder about the heart-wrenching pain of the ancients.

* * *

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 that politics is about uprightness, meaning that leaders should behave properly; Mencius spoke of benevolent governance, and benevolence is the heart of compassion. A society led by upright behavior and compassion can only be anarchic, reflecting the reality of anarchy in China before the Warring States period. 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 preceding one or two hundred thousand years, human societies, as we know them today as 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 historical examples, 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 societies. 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,” states: “I have heard of governing the world by following its natural course, but I have never heard of governing the world by human intervention. By following its course, one fears that the world will indulge in its inherent nature; by indulging it, one fears that the world will change its virtue. If the world does not indulge in its inherent nature, nor change its virtue, then how can one govern 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. And nothing that cannot endure without virtue has ever existed in the world.” In essence, it means: I have heard of the world following its natural course, but I have never heard of it being governed by human intervention. If the world follows its natural course, its inherent virtue 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. Nothing that can endure without virtue has ever existed in the world.

From Yao to Zhuangzi, over two thousand years have passed. Zhuangzi believed that the governance of the past two millennia was a temporary phenomenon, and that the world would eventually return to complete anarchy. Two thousand years have passed since Zhuangzi, and modern anarchists are now repeating his words: the world is returning to anarchy. The book *Zhuangzi* quotes Confucius frequently, treating him as a senior figure. The Confucius in *Zhuangzi* shows Daoist tendencies; in his youth, Confucius consulted Laozi, and in his later years, he favored the *I Ching*, which is 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 indeed 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 has used the metaphor of Confucianism and Taoism complementing each other to describe the lifestyle of ancient Chinese society. He argues that from the reign of Emperor Wu of Han until 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 gained considerable popularity. Reading history in this light resolves many questions. The founders of Taoism and Confucianism, Lao Tzu and Confucius, both spoke for society as a whole, and both valued the past over the present. Therefore, the lifestyle of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties can still be summarized as Confucianism and Taoism complementing each other, although at this time, Confucianism and Taoism had not yet reached a philosophical level. The author has speculated that during the Three Dynasties period, Taoism was dominant, with Confucianism playing a supporting role. [2] During the Three Dynasties period, when society faced crises such as riots and divisions, Confucian figures would emerge to call for order through morality and etiquette in order to stabilize society; while the dominant Daoist figures emphasized simplicity and purity. It was through their joint efforts that dangers were averted and crises were turned into safety, thus blocking the path to the emergence of a secondary social state. Conclusion: Early Confucianism existed to maintain the anarchic social reality.

Third, there was no true state or government during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou 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 big fruit is not eaten, the gentleman gets a carriage, the petty man is stripped of his wealth,” meaning that the richer one is, the less one can enjoy life, 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 left it here; a man from Jing found it. Why should I seek it back?” Confucius, upon hearing this, said, “Remove the Jing people, and it will be fine.” Laozi, upon hearing this, said, “Remove the man, and it will be fine.” Thus, 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.

( Translation: A man from Chu lost his bow and refused to look for it, saying, “One man from Chu lost a bow, and another man from Chu found it. Why should I bother to find it?” Confucius, upon hearing this story, said, “Just remove the word ‘Chu’.” Lao Tzu, upon hearing this story, said, “Just remove the word ‘human’ as well.” Confucius had the entirety of humanity in his heart, while Lao Tzu had humanity and nature in his heart; therefore, Lao Tzu was the most selfless. Heaven and Earth are vast, generating all things without treating them as their own children, creating all things without possessing them; all things receive nourishment from Heaven and Earth, benefiting from them without knowing how they came to be—this is all thanks to the grace 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 man who lost his bow to forget his state of Chu 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 Chu 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 or Confucius on all humankind, the result could only be three dynasties similar to the modern United Nations, lacking any truly meaningful nation-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 by 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 tendency towards anarchism, while Confucius’s inaction is to achieve governing through inaction by engaging in political means.”[7]

This aligns with the author’s view that during the Three Dynasties period, Confucianism aimed to maintain social order and anarchy by advocating morality and ritual. Confucius and Mencius represented a continuation of this Confucian effort, only this time, due to a qualitative change in society, their goals became unattainable. Even so, their ideal of non-interference (wuwei) was essentially no different from Zhuangzi’s non-interference approach; both were forms of anarchy. Furthermore, in a time of frequent wars and constant competition, achieving non-interference was no easy feat; it required a lifetime of dedication. This is why both Confucius and Mencius harbored thoughts of reclusion, while 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 possessed vast territories and populations of at least 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 primordial society and a man-made secondary society. I discovered that Chinese civilization began in a primordial society, while Western civilization began in a secondary society, with China entering the secondary society stage during the Warring States period.

Please refer to Section 4, Social Models, of the second part of this book. In such a social model, each level lives within its own primordial society, and the guiding principles of its social life remain the equality, reciprocity, and emotional intuition of the primordial society, that is, to exert the powerful force of human nature to stabilize society, just like in prehistoric society. Readers may also refer to the author’s previous texts. [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:

(I) Guided by natural instincts:

A nation has a constitution and a set of 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), and there is no textual indication of any governing ideology at that time.

(II) Anarchy and Local 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 have continued to occur. By this logic, even superpowers in the primitive society of the third generation would experience localized conflicts. Primitive society-style violent conflicts, like conflicts between animals of the same species, are conducted according to fixed rituals and often end with intimidation. As depicted in Zhang Yimou’s film *Hero*, both sides confront each other with their eyes closed, fighting in their minds to resolve disputes. 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 produce such chaotic scenes, and only such wars could resolve disputes without casualties, much like conflicts in primitive societies.

(III) Anarchy and Leaderlessness:

The *I Ching* repeatedly portrays the primordial society as a superpower not as a government, nor as the superior of local forces; therefore, the proper description is: “a group of dragons without a head.” The *I Ching* not only uses the phrases “a group of dragons without a head” 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 the Earth, if Heaven remains indifferent, problems will arise. Only when Heaven itself descends to the Earth can normal communication between Heaven and Earth be achieved. Zou Yan once speculated that there are nine landmasses in the world surrounded by oceans but not connected, 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 is precisely the image of Heaven above Water, is the *Song* (讼) hexagram, signifying litigation and going to court. The explanation is: Heaven above water is equivalent to separating the two, thus leading to litigation.

(iv) Anarchy and Equal Society:

Almost all ancient anarchic societies were egalitarian 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 egalitarian society. Tribes isolated for a long time on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, such as the Apa Tanis and the Nagas (known for headhunting), while the former was peaceful and the latter often preyed on farmers on the plains, were both egalitarian societies. The *I Ching* describes an egalitarian society. The 15th hexagram says, “The superior man, by virtue of abundance, benefits the poor; he distributes things equitably.” Here, “superior man” refers to a local official whose task is to use wealth to help the poor, distributing it equally according to the amount of resources. The third section above, which discusses “not eating the abundant fruit, the superior man obtaining a carriage, and the inferior man being 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) Equality between men and women:

The ideas of gender equality displayed in the *I Ching* are truly valuable in a context where men have dominated Chinese history for thousands of years. The *Da Guo* hexagram states that “an old man marrying a young wife is without misfortune,” and immediately follows with “an old woman marrying a young husband is without blame or praise.” The author’s thinking is reminiscent of modern feminists; given the existence of the term “chairman,” they immediately coined the term “chairwoman” to correspond with it. The *I Ching* author clearly thought that simply mentioning “old man, young wife” would be unbalanced; the use of “old woman, young husband” is necessary to reflect the reality of gender equality. The *Jia Ren* hexagram states that the woman is in the inner position, and 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 societies, 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. In other words, the woman is in the inner position, and the man is in the outer position.

(vi) Confucius’s saying: “Let the ruler be a ruler, the minister a minister, the father a father, and the son a son.”

The above sufficiently illustrates that maintaining the relationship between ruler and subject depended on the ruler constantly appeasing his subjects. 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 and disorder. 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 nobles, yet upholding high ideals; not serving kings and nobles, this is a worthy example.” This hexagram is a direct expression of this anarchist thought of primitive society. They wanted to rectify their parents while considering it noble not to serve kings and nobles.

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 previous Confucian scholars, 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 Confucian thought more profoundly, systematically, and comprehensively, thus establishing Confucian philosophy. It is precisely for this reason that Confucius said he transmitted but did not create.

(i) Like Lao Tzu, Confucius regarded the ancient primitive society as the ideal society, that is, the Great Harmony world.

Confucius’s concept of “Great Harmony” appears in the *Book of Rites*, which contains later additions. On the other hand, 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 idealism. Confucius had not yet condemned the Five Hegemons, even praising Guan Zhong and Duke Huan of Qi (Analects, 14:18), 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.

(II) Confucius truly wanted to establish a society without punishment and litigation, and this may have been achieved during the reigns of Emperor Cheng and Emperor Kang.

The first (third) section of the previous chapter already listed various arguments in the *Analects* illustrating that Confucius, two thousand years ago, vehemently opposed executions and genuinely wanted to abolish all litigation. For the sake of completeness, the key points are repeated below:

Confucius said, “If a virtuous person governs a state for a hundred years, he can overcome cruelty and eliminate killing. How true these words are!” This means that Confucius’s ideal society not only lacked killing but also cruel punishments. When the Ji family, the rulers of Lu, wanted to use righteousness to punish the wicked, Confucius said, “Why use killing in governance?” (Analects, 13:13, 12:19)

Furthermore, the saying “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you” also carries the meaning of opposing execution: if you do not wish to be killed, then you should not kill others. Confucius also wanted to eliminate litigation, saying, “I am no different from others in hearing lawsuits, but the essential thing is to make sure there are no lawsuits at all!” (Analects, 12:13) 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 that the people are paramount, and the king and the state (ruler, altars of the state) are not important. He opposed tyrants and supported revolution, exhibiting a strong revolutionary character. Anarchism and revolution are not contradictory.

As mentioned at the beginning of Section 4 of this chapter, no punishments were used for forty years during the reigns of Emperors Cheng and Kang of the Western Zhou Dynasty: both the Records of the Grand Historian and the ancient version of the Bamboo Annals record that “during the reigns of Emperors Cheng and Kang, punishments were not used for forty years.” This means that Confucius’s ideal was briefly realized during the Western Zhou period.

(III) 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 govern by laws and regulate by punishments, the people will evade punishment but have no sense of shame. If you govern by virtue and regulate by rites, they will have a sense of shame and moreover become good.” (Analects, 2:1, 2:3) If virtue is used as the standard for social governance 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 (仁). Confucius explained benevolence many times, but without a 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 an emphasis on human nature. Because Confucius saw the chaotic state of society, he emphasized the benevolent aspect of human nature, but he also said: You should know that you yourselves are all people with hearts!

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 virtuous governance and benevolence. Confucius’s virtuous society and Mencius’s benevolent society can only lead to anarchy.

(iv) Confucius’s exemplary politics was only suitable for the circles of primitive society.

Confucius’s advocacy of replacing managerial politics with exemplary politics provides strong evidence that the main social strata before the Warring States period in China were primitive societies. Confucius, who once served as acting prime minister of the State of Lu, strongly advocated exemplary politics, saying that rulers only needed to govern themselves. He said, “Government is about being upright. If you lead by example and are upright, who would dare to be unrighteous?” and “If one’s conduct is upright, one’s orders will be followed without being given; if one’s conduct is not upright, one’s orders will not be followed even if given.” (Analects, 12:17, 13:6) These words all speak of exemplary politics, saying that if government leaders set an example, no one will commit wrongdoing, and there will be no need to issue orders. If leaders cannot set an example, the people will not obey orders issued.

Confucius also said, “If one can rectify oneself, what difficulty is there in governing? If one cannot rectify oneself, how can one rectify others? ” ( The Analects, 13:13) Some translations render “于从政乎何有” as: What difficulty is there in governing? This reflects the disbelief of Confucius’s words among those with secondary social experience. In fact, Confucius meant that once a role model is established, no further management is needed.

It’s worth noting that Confucius’s political example was two-way: leaders set an example for society, and society, in turn, sets an example for leaders. So when someone asked Confucius why he didn’t enter politics, he replied, “The Book of Documents says: ‘Filial piety is being filial to one’s parents, and brotherly love is influencing those who govern. This is also governing; why must one become an official to be considered governing? ‘ ” (Analects, 2:21) In other words, Confucius believed that setting an example at home to influence those who wanted to govern was itself a form of politics. A state that can be governed by the harmony of an ordinary family is nothing but anarchy.

Mencius also emphasized 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 one ruler is upright, the country will be at peace. If one’s own conduct is upright, the world will submit to him.” (Mencius, Li Lou I)

(V) The image of Confucius as a gentleman is similar to that of libertarians in modern anarchism.

Rousseau (1712-1778) famously said, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This statement was later considered a manifesto of anarchism. A secondary society is like a ship without a fixed course at sea; not everyone on board has the freedom to choose their direction. As Marx revealed in the laws of human social development: the stages of society such as slavery, feudalism, and capitalism are not a matter of free choice for anyone. 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 image of the gentleman he depicted was a moral exemplar, it showed tendencies toward anarchist libertarianism.

Confucius’s image of the gentleman is closer to aesthetic pursuits: it lacks objective standards that can be accurately expressed in language, requires no secondary social recognition to issue a gentleman’s certificate, and has no utilitarian purpose to measure the gentleman’s social impact. Confucius tirelessly discussed the Six Sayings and Six Concealments, the Five Virtues and Four Evils, the Three Friends and Three Fears, the Nine Thoughts, etc. (Analects, 17:8, 20:7, 16:4-10, 17:6), too numerous to list here. These many requirements and details, rather than being self-imposed within the small circle of Confucian gentlemen, are more accurately described as a form of self-promotion and a self-indulgent art of living. 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 Chi a petty person because he asked about farming and gardening. Confucius even said that those who always kept their word and carried out their actions were petty men, and that all those in politics at the time were petty men: “How can such small men be considered worthwhile!” (Analects, 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; therefore, he did not emphasize keeping one’s word and carrying out one’s actions. 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 keeping one’s word and fulfilling one’s promises, 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, nor fulfill his promises; 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 consequences 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 their actions.

(vi) 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 individuals should submit to powers external to them, including laws, the demands of social existence itself, and the will of God. Confucius stressed that “those who follow different paths cannot make plans together,” and that “if serving one’s ruler with the Way is not possible, then one should stop” (Analects, 15:39, 11:23). He also looked down on contemporary politicians, calling them petty and narrow-minded. Therefore, Confucius was passionate about politics throughout his life, but he only briefly served in the state of Lu, which was known for its etiquette, and even then, he left because of differing views on the Way.

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.” (Analects, 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 revolution of Tang and Wu and establish a new Zhou dynasty. (The Analects, 17:5) In another instance, when subordinates rebelled, Confucius, during his travels through the states, agreed to the demands of the rebels in Pu, Wei, but then failed to honor them, prompting the ruler of Wei to send troops to quell the rebellion. This demonstrates that Confucius lacked objective moral standards beyond practical considerations. The author, following tradition, uses the term “rebellion” in this passage; in reality, there is no such thing as rebellion in anarchic societies.

Confucius, a key minister of the State of Lu, was displeased because the Duke of Lu accepted beautiful women and horses from the State of Qi. In modern terms, Confucius could have offered his opinions and criticisms, but ultimately, the Duke of Lu’s decision on whether to accept the gifts rested with him, and as a subject, Confucius had an obligation to accept the Duke’s final decision. According to the *Records of the Grand Historian*, Confucius left Lu with his students without even saying goodbye. The rulers of Lu were forced to send someone under the guise of seeing him off to inquire about the reason for Confucius’s displeasure. Confucius’s actions 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 what is firm is not polished but polished; is it not said that what is white is not stained but dyed but not blackened?” (Analects, 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 opposite backgrounds. 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]

(vii) Confucius’s anarchism is based on the small collectives of primitive society, therefore he advocated the separation of superiors and inferiors.

Confucius advocated separating the upper-class elites from the common people, the so-called “the superiors are wise and the inferiors are foolish,” leading them to follow the rules without allowing them to know them, and “the common people should not discuss” (Analects, 17:3, 8:9, 16:2), which is often mistakenly interpreted as a class division within the state. This separation by Confucius should not be seen as an 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 ancient Chinese peasants’ choice of state did not eliminate anyone; it was a mutual selection process, where everyone got what they deserved. This is why Confucius said, “Rise up extinct states, continue interrupted lineages, and promote those who have been neglected” (Analects, 20:4). This reveals the essential difference between primitive society and secondary society: the former encompasses everything and enjoys life; the latter involves selection and elimination, as Marx revealed, where 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 that “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 their leisure time entirely 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 behavioral rules and social structures in a secondary society, Chinese history would have been very 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, as well as Confucius and Mencius, were all based on peasant community life. Therefore, peasant life in China did not change much in history, but local power gradually diminished and peasants were placed directly under the emperor. The Song Dynasty was threatened by northern barbarian states, so centralization intensified and local powers such as princes eventually collapsed. Although the governments of Western countries only increased dramatically in modern times, and their functions and responsibilities greatly expanded, the small size of the Chinese government and the large population it managed in history amazed Western scholars. John King Fairbank said that there had never been an example of so few people ruling so many people for such a long period of time . He also said that 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 following number of registered officials: 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. His self-proclaimed moral high ground was unprecedented and unparalleled. The following excerpts, accompanied by translations, offer a glimpse into the grandeur of this structure and the magnificence of its depiction, allowing readers to appreciate the need for such a superstar in the two-tiered society.

Mencius said, “I am good at cultivating my vast and righteous spirit.” “This spirit is so great and so strong that nothing in the universe can compare to it. If I cultivate it with upright character and protect it from harm, it will fill every corner of the universe. This spirit must be accompanied by righteousness and the Way; otherwise, it will wither. This spirit is born from the accumulation of all righteousness in the world, not something that can be obtained by simply seizing righteousness. If one does something that does not satisfy one’s conscience, this spirit will immediately wither.” ( Mencius, Gongsun Chou I)

Mencius further said, “To be a great man, one must dwell in the broadest dwelling place under heaven, stand in the most upright position under heaven, and walk the greatest path under heaven. When one’s ambitions are fulfilled, one should share them with the people; when one’s ambitions are not fulfilled, one should walk one’s own path alone . Wealth and honor cannot corrupt me in the slightest, poverty and hardship cannot sway my ambitions in the slightest, and power and force cannot subdue me in the slightest. This is what is meant by a great man. ” (Mencius, Teng Wen Gong II)

Mencius famously explained the core concept of his doctrine, “righteousness” (义), which was already quoted in Section 4 of the previous chapter. Here it is translated into modern Chinese: “I like to eat fish and bear’s paw. If I could only have one, I would give up fish and take bear’s paw. I need life and I also need righteousness. If I could only have one, I would give up life and take righteousness.” (Mencius, Gaozi I) Valuing a belief more than life itself is a characteristic of a two-tiered society.

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 the 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, urging 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 of Qi by his family. Mencius’s friend was dissatisfied with his behavior, saying, “Within the family, there is the relationship between father and son; outside the family, there is the relationship between ruler and subject. This is the great principle of human relations. Father and son should be based on affection, while ruler and subject should be based on respect. I have seen the King of Qi’s respect for you, Mencius, but I have not seen how you, Mencius, should reciprocate.”

Mencius retorted, “What a load of nonsense! None of the people of Qi speak of benevolence and righteousness to the King. Do they think benevolence and righteousness are not good? They think the King is not worthy of their attention; this is the greatest disrespect. I do not possess the Way of Yao and Shun, and therefore dare not present it before the King. Therefore, among all the people of Qi, only I, Mencius, respect the King the most.” ( Mencius , Gongsun Chou II)

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.” (Zhuangzi: Removing the Chest ) 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 also sang after his wife’s death, instructing his disciples to throw his body into the wilderness after his own death. 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 earned by licking the King of Qin’s hemorrhoids.” This shows that Daoist figures still possessed the tolerance 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 sat resting in the sun, with all his possessions beside him: a barrel for his house, a walking stick, and a bowl.

Alexander the Great approached the eccentric philosopher and, delighted, asked Diogenes if there was anything he could help with. Diogenes immediately replied, “There is something I need your help with: please move aside; you are blocking my sunlight.” Afterwards, Alexander the Great was deeply moved and said, “If I were not Alexander the Great, I would wish to be Diogenes.”

When he was dying, Diogenes left a will saying that he wished to be thrown outside the city after his death to be feasted on by wild animals. When asked if he would mind being bitten by animals after his death, he said, “I don’t care, just give me a stick and I’ll use it to drive them away.”

In short, Mencius, Zhuangzi, and Diogenes all leaned towards anarchic societies, 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 through 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: China did not establish a secondary social space for independent individuals.

The different attitudes of Alexander the Great and the Kings of Qi and Chu also represent the differences between Eastern and Western cultures. To a large extent, we can say that Alexander was equivalent to the emperor of the Zhou Dynasty or the emperors of the Qin and Han Dynasties, meaning his position was clearly above that of the Kings of Qi and Chu. From a modern perspective, Diogenes’ personal life did indeed have aspects that were superior to Alexander the Great’s, because ancient Greece, like modern society, was composed of free individuals. The Kings of Qi and Chu lacked this independent individualistic mindset and may even have viewed being king as a necessity for a primitive social aesthetic order. Similarly, Chinese history evaluates Mencius and Zhuangzi from the perspective of social morality, rather than examining them from the perspective of independent individuals.

Diogenes is revered as the founder of Cynicism. Cynicism originally referred to living like a dog, and modern Western scholars still consider it one of the most effective ways to criticize society. Chinese Daoists, however, genuinely admired animals, viewing them as pure and innocent role models for humanity. We could also say that Zhuangzi was a prehistoric, natural dog, Mencius was a domesticated dog, while Diogenes was 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. The changes in the degree of subjective expression throughout history confirm the existence of this opposite process. This also verifies the Marxist theory of state dictatorship, namely, that China’s transition from anarchic society to a governmental state should be accompanied by the effect of the state exercising dictatorship over the people: a decrease in the degree of subjective expression.

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 subject consciousness determined by heredity is expressed in a person’s life, and is referred to as subject expression. The author has specifically argued that subject consciousness can occur in primitive societies and that the evolutionary paths of the occurrence and development of subject consciousness in the East and West are different. [16] The linguistic word “I” representing the subject is directly related to the expression of subject 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.

(I) The suppression of subjective consciousness expression by secondary societies

Secondary societies are not inherent to humankind; they are artificial constructs serving specific purposes and are indifferent to the expression of human subjectivity. 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 is significantly reduced in secondary societies. Another description of this trend is found in Marxist theories of state dictatorship, depicting the transformation from the masters of primitive communist society to 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* is 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 0.11%, respectively; the frequency ratios of the characters “人” (person) and “神” (god) are 7.3, 1.3, 0.42, and 0.18, respectively.

There is a saying in Chinese history 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 close to a secondary society, while the north is close to a primitive society. The author examined the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Northern and Southern Song Dynasties, and the Wei in the north and the Jin 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, which is consistent with the Marxist theory of state dictatorship. [15]

(II) Subjective Expression in Western History

The author examined ancient Greek, ancient Roman, and modern English poetry (1343-1932), dividing each work into two parts. Ancient Greek and Roman poems were translated into English to facilitate comparison. The main expressiveness of all three works was lower in the first part and higher in the second. The results are listed below:

Frequency of the word “I” in poetry of the times and 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 Although ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and the modern English-speaking world are interconnected, they are actually three different cultural constructs. The ancient Roman Empire was undoubtedly a more repressive cultural construct, with the lowest degree of subject expression. [15] (III) The Evolution of the Subjectivity of Chinese Historical Expression Frequency table of the character "我" (我, 朕, 余, 吾) in Chinese poetry throughout history Total word count of the era; Subject: I; Genus: I; Object: I; Total number; Percentage The Book of Songs (Shijing) 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 22690 34 24 12 70; 0.31% Song 5875 10 5 2 17; 0.29% Yuan 3104 1 2 3 6; 0.19% Ming 3911 3 6 1 10; 0.26% Qing 9489 12 7 5 24; 0.13% Note: The specific dates in the table above are as follows: 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 above clearly shows a decreasing trend in the expressiveness of the subject, with the lowest levels 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, with its emphasis on meter and rules, was accompanied by a significant decrease in the expressiveness of the subject. 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 expressiveness of Chinese poetry 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 poets who committed suicide 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 fantasies centered on the self; he wandered alone in his fantasies of heaven and earth, never thinking of having a friend to chat with along the way. The ratio of subjective to objective "I" in Qu Yuan's works, the Book of Songs, 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. Compared with the Book of Songs, and compared with the Book of Songs after the Tang Dynasty, the difference in this ratio is statistically significant (P<0.01). That is to say, not only did the subjective expression decrease significantly after the Tang Dynasty, but the ratio of subjective to objective "I" also became similar to that of poets who committed suicide. The reasons for this deserve further investigation. As further confirmation of the findings, the author examines two countries in modern Europe with opposing political trajectories: the Netherlands and Germany. Section Two of the book's "Introduction II" mentions that European landscape painting first appeared in two coastal nations, the Netherlands and England, suggesting that they escaped the threat of European military powers and were able to return to the leisurely mentality of ancient, primitive societies. Modern capitalism and the accompanying modern democracy were also pioneered by these two countries, with the Netherlands developing first and England later, though England eventually surpassed it. Germany, located in the heart of Europe, like China during the Spring and Autumn Period, began as numerous principalities and, through constant warfare, moved towards unification and centralization. As expected, the expressiveness of Dutch poetry gradually increased: from 0.81% (10/1236), 1.07% (9/840), to 1.82% (29/1593) , while the expressiveness of German poetry was the opposite, constantly decreasing: from 1.97% (61/3093), 1.08% (43/3984), 0.88% (21/2397), 0.64% (18/2497), to 0.49% (19/3852). [21] The expressiveness of Chinese poetry decreased by more than seven times in more than two thousand years, while the expressiveness of German poetry decreased by four times in eight hundred years, that is, the beginning was seven times and the end was four times, and the rate of decrease was roughly the same. (iv) Preliminary Explanation I would like to explain the changes in the subject's expression here. Marxism interprets the history of human civilization as a history of class oppression and alienation of human nature. Modern scholar William Eckhardt's research found that five thousand years of world civilization is a history of escalating wars, and 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 difference of great material abundance. In recent years, the progress of anthropological research has made it clear that the Kunsan people of South Africa live in great material abundance. They have vast land and sparse population, food is readily available, and they spend most of their time wandering, visiting each other, and chatting. They are well-nourished and healthy. Much evidence suggests that this is the life of prehistoric camp hunter-gatherer humans. For example, Section 6 of Introduction II mentions that the average height of adult men 30,000 years ago was 177 cm and that of women 165 cm; while the average height of American men in 1960 was 175 cm and that of women 153 cm. Numerous pieces of evidence suggest that humans 30,000 years ago knew how to control reproduction. [18] East and West have followed different historical development paths. 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 developments in human rights and democracy have led the Chinese to view capitalism as anarchism. Ancient China began with a primitive society, where the social environment may have been relatively favorable for a long period. For the first forty years of the Zhou Dynasty, no punishments were used; Mencius stated that King Wu of Zhou only used three thousand men to conquer the Shang Dynasty, and it is generally believed that the war lasted only one day, as many Shang soldiers defected, and aside from King Zhou's suicide, there may have been no casualties. This is not significantly different from the contemporary Western electoral system that facilitates the peaceful transfer of power. The United States has had two presidents assassinated, and one election led to a civil war. In contrast, the ancient Greek Trojan War, which occurred around the same time as the Shang Dynasty, lasted ten years, resulting in the mass killing of all men after the fall of the city and the sale of women and children to slave traders. Anthropological research has found that the invention of agriculture and the establishment of Middle Eastern states both contributed to a shortening of human lifespan. Confucius, in the *Analects*, mentioned three times the need to attract farmers from afar to his domain through virtuous governance. He once said that farmers would come carrying infants, and another time explained that Confucianism advocated a three-year filial piety period because humans are not separated from their parents for the first three years of infancy. Furthermore, King Li of Zhou's attempt to control mountains and rivers was met with strong opposition from farmers. These events suggest that farmers were highly mobile at the time, and the existence of vast wastelands allowed for a degree of hunter-gatherer lifestyle. They also suggest that during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, peasant women may have carried children for extended periods, indicating that the natural mechanisms of hunting (high-protein diet) and breastfeeding (inhibiting pregnancy) still existed. The author lived in Guizhou for many years, where women still carried children on their backs for extended periods. We can imagine that during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, the land was vast and sparsely populated, without the rapid population growth seen in civilized societies. These early superpowers maintained relative peace, avoiding the later cycles of dramatic population fluctuations. War has the dual effect of stimulating population growth and killing people: large-scale wars and famines after the Qin and Han dynasties often led to a sudden decline in population, such as the population being halved during the reigns of Emperor Wu of Han and Empress Wu Zetian. According to Chen Ping, such a devastating event with more than half of the population dying occurred at least ten times in China over two thousand years, while it only happened once in Europe. The population of the Western Han Dynasty was 60 million, but by the beginning of the Three Kingdoms period, only 2 percent remained. [19] The cost of civilization was so high, the history of state dictatorship revealed by Marx was so tragic, and how the people suffered sleepless nights and bloodshed was not recorded in history. The study of subject expression only reveals a little information. As mentioned above, the degree of subjective expression significantly decreased after the Tang Dynasty, and the ratio of subject-object to self-expression became similar to that of suicidal poets. Between the Han and Tang Dynasties, there was a revolutionary change known as the Wei-Jin style, symbolizing a process of literati development—the maturation of the literati's subjective consciousness, forming a unique ideology and cultural tradition of intellectuals, separating them from the peasant masses. Afterward, poetry became the privilege of the literati, and the influence of rural folk songs greatly decreased. However, this can also be explained by Marxist class theory, namely, the process of class differentiation and maturation, ultimately forming a class ideology unique to the literati class. This also supports the historical process of China's transition from anarchy to state despotism discussed in this section, although poetry after the Tang Dynasty represented peasants less. That is, the peasants' right to express their thoughts in poetry was deprived, and this deprivation itself was a process of the emergence of state despotism. Chapters 6 and 8 of this book will discuss the differences between Eastern and Western religions and poetry, which will not be repeated here. [20] Religion and art both have the function of soothing the wounded soul in secondary societies. However, the influence of religion and art on the degree of subjective expression is very complex. Religion and art both have the function of prompting people to leave secular society, thereby reducing the motivation of subjective consciousness to roam at the secondary social level, that is, reducing subjective expression; but they can also form their own little world for their own enjoyment, that is, "being an emperor by sticking in the door" mentioned in Chapter 11 of this book, which can also increase the degree of subjective expression. Compared with the West, Chinese religion and poetry tend to be more personal activities, rather than the Western church collective worship and the stage performance of poetry. Before modern times, Western poetry and stage performance were more closely related, such as Shakespeare being considered a great poet. Conclusion: Even with religion and poetry, the West has more space for activities at the secondary social level, while China has more practice of self-cultivation. In the end, they neither become emperors by sticking in the door nor roam at the secondary society. This social tendency is not conducive to the subjective expression of Chinese people in the fields of religion and poetry. We cannot deny the effectiveness of Confucianism in alleviating the suffering of the people after the Qin and Han dynasties, but it failed to curb the ambition and extravagance of Emperor Wu of Han and Empress Wu Zetian, leading to nationwide catastrophe. It was precisely because of this harsh social reality that there was a social demand for Confucianism after the Qin and Han dynasties, and a need for the opium-like effect of religion. 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 over the past two thousand years, we realize that their views were not without merit. literature [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 relationship between Confucianism and Taoism in mainstream Chinese culture. 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 Examining the Differences Between Eastern and Western Cultures. *Xue Deng*, Issue 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 by Inaction — A Brief Discussion on Confucius’s Political Thought. Journal of Jianghan Petroleum Institute ( Social Sciences Edition ) . Vol. 1, No. 4 , 1999 . [8] Yu Sheng (2009): The impact of the genetically encoded primitive society before the Warring States period on Chinese history. Xue Deng, No. 9 (http://www.confucius2000.com). [9] Mai Jinheng (2006): The Political Thought of Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi. (http://www.confucianism.com) (cn/html/zhexue/825148.html). [10] Yu Sheng (2010): The relationship between the overall thought of the Book of Changes and the pre-Qin Confucianism and Taoism. Xue Deng, No. 16 (http://www.confucius2000.com). [11] You Sheng (2010): On the influence of Confucius’s inclusive thought of the Great Unity on the original society. Xue Deng, 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): On the different artistic thoughts of the two societies from the different attitudes of Confucius and Plato towards the art of poetry. Xue Deng, No. 11 (http://www.confucius2000.com). [21] All poems are translated from English. German poets are divided into five periods based on their birth years: 1137-1100, 1100-1800, 1800-1900, 1900-1940, and 1940-1975. Dutch poets are divided into three periods: 1581-1750, 1750-1900, and 1900-1967. All poems are selected from the website: http://www.brindin.com/. (2012) (Original text from: Li Yousheng: Looking at Confucius from a Different Angle, Suzhou University Press, 2014.)

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share