On Confucius's Idea of a Fair and Equal Society

Yusheng

Abstract: In recent years, Confucius’s idea of being concerned not with poverty but with inequality has often been interpreted negatively. In fact, the idea of a equitable society was a consistent theme in Confucius’s thought, consistent with his opposition to litigation and execution, and his theory of universal brotherhood. This article cites anthropological research and the political and economic realities of the late Spring and Autumn period to demonstrate that being concerned not with poverty but with inequality was a universal human need in early societies, consistent with the social conditions of Confucius’s time. Later Chinese history confirms Confucius’s assertion that inequality brought immense suffering to the people. China entered a two-tiered society during the Warring States period, so Mencius and Xunzi abandoned Confucius’s idea of a equitable society, elaborating Confucianism based on the recognition of class differences. In comparison, Confucius’s idea of a equitable society has a longer-term vision and deeper considerations, and its positive significance remains even more than two thousand years later.

Keywords: primitive society, egalitarian society, not poverty but inequality, equality eliminates poverty

From: *Xue Deng*, Issue 4, 2009, Serial No. 12. (Edited by the author, November 9, 2009)

* * *

The discussion of small countries with few people in the Tao Te Ching shows that Lao Tzu regarded the prehistoric primitive society as the ideal society. Lao Tzu also believed that a good government exists without being known by its people. No government in the history of human civilization has reached Lao Tzu’s standard. On the contrary, modern political science tends to let the people form their own government and supervise the government’s behavior, which is exactly the opposite of the ideal of the government being unknown to the people. Lao Tzu’s theory of government still has its reasons. Different levels do not need to understand each other. For example, letters and Chinese characters do not know the meaning of the content of the book, and human cells do not know human joys and sorrows because they are at different levels. With such a profound understanding of human society, Lao Tzu made the famous statement that “sweet dew from heaven will make the people equal”, that is, an equal society comes from human nature. Confucius also showed the idea of an equal society, which was not seen by later Mencius, Xunzi and others. This further confirms that Confucius studied under Lao Tzu and was influenced by Lao Tzu’s thought. It also further confirms the author’s statement that from the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties to the Spring and Autumn period, the main level of social life of the Chinese people was the primitive society encoded by heritage, rather than the artificial secondary society. [1,2]

I. Human beings naturally prefer an equal and friendly social environment.

In the early stages of China’s reform and opening up in the 1980s, the so-called “red-eye disease” phenomenon was criticized nationwide to allow a select few to get rich first and set an example. Humans have an innate aversion to the concentration of wealth and power, a crucial pillar of prehistoric egalitarian societies—the Chinese saying, “People fear becoming famous, just as pigs fear growing fat,” and “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” Since humans inherently prefer an equal and friendly social environment, they are willing to pay the price for it. This is the essence of Confucius’s saying, “I am not worried about poverty but about inequality,” preferring to endure poverty rather than have a few wealthy individuals, and even more so, not having them issue orders to them.

In egalitarian societies, individual talent and contribution cannot be converted into power and private wealth. James Woodburn argues that the reason behind this is that egalitarian societies emphasize food sharing, thus establishing a cultural tradition that values generosity and ignores individual ability and contribution, creating a social pressure not to stand out as if one is worth more than others. Among hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Kung, BaMbuti, and Hadza, men who flaunt their hunting skills are ridiculed and subjected to informal sanctions. `[3,4]

For more than four thousand years, from 3000 BC to 1500 AD, most of the inhabitants of Africa lived in scattered communities, forming temporary coordinating bodies only when external pressures or other issues of common concern arose. A collective did not allow anyone to become particularly powerful. Strong social pressure forced the wealthy to distribute their wealth to others. In the seventh century AD, there was an Igbo people in Nigeria whose word for rich meant: Give me something. Socially successful people were accused of using magic. During these four thousand years, there were sometimes kings, and such kingdoms were usually constitutional monarchies where the king’s power was checked and balanced. Society forced them to distribute their wealth and strictly limited capital accumulation to prevent the emergence of classes based on private property. When a king became unpopular, he could even be forced to commit suicide. [5]

Confucius lived on the eve of the final disintegration of the original social system, and a strong social force still advocated equality. Even during the Warring States period, the agricultural school of Xu Xing still argued that even the king should cultivate the land for food. The *Mozi* (Chapter 28, “Lu Wen”) states, “Mozi said: ‘No! The spirits desire many things from people. They desire that people with high positions should yield to the virtuous, and that people with great wealth should share with the poor. Do the spirits only desire to elevate the lungs of the wicked? Now, you hold high positions but do not yield to the virtuous; this is one inauspicious; you have great wealth but do not share with the poor; this is another inauspicious.'” This illustrates that China at that time had a social demand similar to that of ancient Africa: those who held power and wealth should automatically share with others to prevent the excessive concentration of power and wealth and the emergence of a powerful class wielding life and death.

II. Confucius’s Idea of a Fair and Equal Society

The idea of a equitable society was a consistent tenet of Confucius, in which he was similar to Mozi and Xu Xing of the Agricultural School. While Mozi and Xu Xing had specific standards and measures, Confucius, aside from strongly advocating benevolent governance, did not list any concrete standards or measures for implementation. This aligns with the reality of early social systems, where the pillar of operation was human nature itself, not any particular system or measure. Therefore, Confucius only emphasized the inherent virtue of “benevolence” while vehemently opposing inequality. Early societies also had differences, but these differences were within the tolerance range of human nature; wealth and power were not yet linked.

The Analects records Confucius saying, “I have heard that those who govern a state or a family are not worried about poverty but about inequality, not worried about scarcity but about instability. For where there is equality, there is no poverty; where there is harmony, there is no scarcity; where there is stability, there is no upheaval.” Some versions read “not worried about scarcity but about inequality, not worried about poverty but about instability,” which seems to contradict the later “where there is equality, there is no poverty; where there is harmony, there is no scarcity.” Furthermore, “where there is equality, there is no poverty” already implies “not worried about poverty but about inequality.” Therefore, this version is based on the Four Books edition edited by Cui Li. [6]

In these words, Confucius clearly argues that as long as society is equitable, there will be no poverty; he would rather be poor than unequal. The *Analects*, in the chapter “Taibo,” records Confucius saying, “To be fond of bravery and hate poverty is to cause chaos.” That is, Confucius believed that being unwilling to accept poverty and indulging in bravery would lead to social disorder. Confucius advocated concern for the Way (the Way) rather than poverty, and did not oppose wealth in general. Therefore, he said, “When the state is well-governed, to be poor and lowly is shameful. When the state is poorly governed, to be rich and noble is shameful.” (*Analects*, “Taibo”)

Confucius’s ideal society was a hierarchical system governed by rites and music, with the emperor, feudal lords, high officials, and commoners each occupying their respective positions. This hierarchy did not grant those in high positions the privilege of absolute dominance. In a sense, Confucius’s hierarchical system contained a broad element of equality among the various levels, and compared to later typical class societies, it was closer to the form of a primitive society. Historically, many regimes in India were established by foreign tribes; one was defeated, another rose, but the basic social structure remained unchanged, representing a typical egalitarian society. As mentioned earlier, within the three levels of emperor, feudal lords, and villages, each level of society could be an egalitarian primitive or quasi-primitive society. The emperor’s relationship with feudal lords, and vice versa, could theoretically be governed by the principles of equality and mutual benefit inherent in primitive societies. [2] Therefore, when Confucius discussed how those in high positions should treat their subordinates, he said in the Analects, Yan Yuan: “When you go out, treat others as if they were important guests; when you employ the people, treat them as if you were performing a great sacrifice; do not do to others what you would not have them do to you; then you will have no resentment in the state and no resentment at home.” From these words of Confucius, we cannot see the existence of any secondary social power. The Analects, Yao Yue, says, “Revive extinct states, continue interrupted lineages, and promote those who have been neglected,” which is a manifestation of the idea of equality.

Here I will give an example of an ethnic group called Apa Thanis on the Sino-Indian border, whose living conditions are very similar to those of the ancient Chinese people. In the 1960s, there were 11,000 of them living in a valley, divided into seven villages. They shared a common language and culture, but were mainly family-based and village-based, and no fixed political management system had been formed above the villages. In contrast to the brutal class society in the surrounding mountains, they lived in a classless and egalitarian society, where men and women were even equal and marriage was free. They were divided into two classes in religious ceremonies, and the higher class had no privileges in political and economic life. The family-based social structure led to some families becoming wealthy, and these wealthy families regularly entertained the villagers, even all the Apa Thanis. If the purpose of getting rich was to entertain others for free, the accumulation of wealth was limited. This limit was not specifically defined, but was based on people’s feelings. This provides a good explanation for Confucius’s idea of an egalitarian society: the existence of feudal lords and officials does not necessarily mean political and economic inequality, but the existence of inequality is determined by people’s feelings, that is, it remains within the range that people’s feelings can tolerate. [7]

Confucius’s saying, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” has become widely known in the world today, serving as a code of conduct for equal interaction between people. However, it is not applied to the exercise of power in secondary social systems. The exercise of power is precisely “doing to others what you would not have them do to you,” such as the death penalty and imprisonment. Therefore, Confucius’s words above indicate that the relationship between the emperor and the feudal lords, and between the feudal lords and the villages, still closely resembles the principle of equality and reciprocity in primitive society. This further illustrates that Confucius did indeed want to establish a society without litigation and executions, and that Confucius’s ideal society could only be a equitable, primitive society.

Because the original social system was completely destroyed and lost forever during the Warring States period, it is difficult for people to fully understand Confucius’s thought. As a result, Confucius’s idea of a egalitarian society was almost ignored, and even criticized as egalitarianism. It is necessary to emphasize here that Confucius’s idea of a egalitarian society was adapted to the political and economic situation in China at that time, and was not a whimsical invention. Confucius’s idea of a egalitarian society is based on a profound understanding of human society and has irreplaceable positive significance.

The *Analects* (Book 12, Chapter 16) records that Fan Chi asked Confucius about farming. Confucius was displeased, saying, “If those in power love propriety, the people will not dare to be disrespectful; if those in power love righteousness, the people will not dare to disobey; if those in power love trustworthiness, the people will not dare to be unfaithful. If this is the case, then people from all directions will come carrying their children on their backs. What need is there for farming?” This illustrates that farmers at that time generally had the right to freely migrate and choose their country. Only when most farmers possessed this ability would they come from all directions upon hearing of a good government. At that time, Chinese farmers were still similar to humans in prehistoric societies; they had little private property, and their hands and feet were used to carrying children. However, with vast land and sparse population, they possessed abundant natural resources.

According to Wang Yuzhe, who specializes in ancient Chinese history, the geographical and economic situation at that time was probably just like that. Wang Yuzhe believes that during the Western Zhou period, China was only inhabited by the so-called Huaxia people in scattered settlements, interspersed with various ethnic minorities. During the Spring and Autumn period, there were still large areas of wasteland between the states. [8] This situation was fundamentally changed during the Warring States period. Even during the Warring States period, Shang Yang formulated policies to attract farmers from the Central Plains states to the Qin state, which had more land than people, to cultivate wasteland. The Book of Rites, Tan Gong, records that Confucius met a woman fleeing the government on the west side of Mount Tai who said that her family of three had been eaten by a tiger. Confucius sighed and said, “A harsh government is more ferocious than a tiger.” This shows that in the late Spring and Autumn period, there were still wastelands in the interior of Lu, which was located between the Central Plains states, that the government could not manage. These wastelands were so sparsely populated that they were harmed by wild beasts.

Robert L. Carneiro (1927-) first proposed the theory of natural barriers to the development of human civilization, namely the role of geographical limiting factors in the development of civilization. This theory holds that causing significant losses to those who want to escape state control and migrate to surrounding areas leads to a sharp decline in living standards. People endure state control and the inequality brought about by the state in order to avoid suffering losses. [9] The story of Confucius’s harsh government being more ferocious than a tiger provides such an example, indicating that the State of Lu at that time may have just had the geographical conditions to force the people to endure the existence of the state. However, this record contradicts Confucius’s statement that “people from all directions carried their children to him,” which can only indicate that such geographical conditions had just appeared and were still an isolated phenomenon. Once the government has strict control over all of its territory, it is impossible to migrate to neighboring countries or to the wilderness.

Governments guided by the modern culture of wealth accumulation use taxation to guarantee a minimum standard of living for the poor, then encourage people to strive for wealth. This system requires a strong economic foundation and political guarantees that the economic system will not be exploited by bad actors. These political guarantees are based on the idea that human nature is untrustworthy, as seen in ancient Greece where citizens elected leaders through assemblies, juries voted in criminal cases, and a large-scale commercial production system employed most of society. In Confucius’s time, China was still largely a primitive society, clearly lacking these conditions. That is to say, stimulating production to improve the living standards of the poor by widening the gap between rich and poor would have the opposite effect, hence Confucius strongly opposed it. Given the vast land and sparse population at the time, people generally did not face the threat of famine. If famine existed and became a social problem, Confucius would attract farmers from all directions by promising food. The method Confucius used to attract people in Confucianism was simply a stable and friendly social environment that fostered equality, namely, the teachings of “propriety, righteousness, and trustworthiness.” In short, Confucius’s idea of a equitable society was a product of the socio-economic conditions of his time, and not the utopian ideal that people today perceive it to be.

Third, both Mencius and Xunzi lacked Confucius’s idea of a equitable society.

There was another way to draw people from all directions, children and all, to gather before the rulers, a method Confucius neither knew nor wanted to know: using a powerful army to herd them like sheep. History indeed employed this method. This method required two prerequisites: first, sufficient food to support a large army; and second, the effective management of wasteland, creating numerous states one after another, so that those unable to adapt to the harsh governance of the state had nowhere to escape. These economic and geographical conditions became a reality during the Warring States period.

Mencius’s father died first, followed by his mother. During this time, Mencius himself became wealthy, so his mother’s burial was more elaborate than his father’s, sparking debate. The *Mencius* (Book 4, Part 2) also records a story of a man from Qi who went to the suburban cemetery every day to beg for food and drink. He returned home each day having drunk his fill of wine and meat. He boasted to his wives and concubines that he dined with wealthy friends daily. These accounts suggest a significant improvement in the standard of living at that time, consistent with the historical context: iron farm tools were being widely used for the first time, whereas previously they were mainly made of stone, wood, bone, and a small amount of bronze. The continuous improvement in iron smelting technology undoubtedly represented a revolutionary change in agricultural production. The *Mencius* (Book 5, Part 1) states that one man tilling the land was enough to feed an eight-person family. This high productivity was at least comparable to the production level in northern China at the end of the Qing Dynasty, yet even after more than two thousand years of development, it has not surpassed the production level achieved during the Warring States period.

Calling this an agricultural revolution is not an exaggeration. But like the Industrial Revolution in modern European history, what awaited the people was not the peace and stability they longed for, but rather ever-growing, sky-high desires and ambitions. Increased production stimulated population growth and also fueled the desire for wealth, leading to severe inequality. This inequality, in turn, fueled the lust for power—a bottomless pit that could never be filled. This burning lust for power transformed into escalating wars, which then began to consume thousands upon thousands of people. The result was precisely as Confucius said: “It is not poverty that is to be feared, but inequality.” In Confucius’s time, inequality was far more harmful than poverty. This change was first manifested in the actions of the feudal lords and other powerful figures. The Book of Mencius, Book 2, Part 2, records the words of Yan Ying, the prime minister of Qi: “When the Son of Heaven visits the feudal lords, it is called a tour of inspection, which means to inspect what they are guarding. When the feudal lords pay homage to the Son of Heaven, it is called reporting on their duties, which means to report on what they are doing. There is nothing that is not important. In spring, the emperor inspects the plowing and makes up for any deficiencies, and in autumn, he inspects the harvest and helps those who are not well-off. There is a saying in the summer: ‘If our king does not travel, how can we rest? If our king is not happy, how can we help him?’ A tour and a moment of pleasure are the measure for the feudal lords. But now it is not so. When the army marches, the hungry are not fed, and the weary are not rested. Slander is rampant, and the people hide themselves. The emperor is oppressive to the people, and food and drink are served in a chaotic manner. The people linger and waste their lives, which is a worry for the feudal lords.”

In ancient times, the travels of emperors and feudal lords were meant to regulate resources and provide relief to the poor—an act of equitable distribution that narrowed the gap between the rich and poor. Guided by Confucius’s ideal of a egalitarian society, these travels were eagerly anticipated by the people. However, during the Warring States period, the feudal lords’ travels were wasteful and burdensome, acts of ostentation that widened the gap between the rich and poor, and were deeply resented by the people. At this point, even if the people were filled with righteous indignation, it was futile; they had nowhere to escape. Their only rational choice was to endure suffering and humiliation to avoid a meaningless death. How the people adapted to this harsh social reality from the egalitarian society of Confucius’s “propriety, righteousness, and trustworthiness” was undocumented, and the resulting spiritual trauma remained largely unrecorded. Generally speaking, this required at least several generations of cultural transformation, and young people were most vulnerable during this process. Mencius and Han Feizi both specifically mentioned the plight of young people, indirectly highlighting the difficulty of this social transformation.

The *Mencius*, Book 6, Part 1, states, “In years of plenty, the young men are often lazy; in years of famine, they are often violent.” Mencius specifically points out that these young people are not inherently lazy in years of plenty and violent in years of famine, but rather that the social environment of the time shaped them. We can imagine that improved living standards led to the emergence of facilities for the wealthy to indulge in pleasure and entertainment, while the expanding ambitions of the ruling class forced the poor to double their production even after their basic needs were met. This led to the perception that young people were lazy; spending time on entertainment after achieving basic survival was a common practice in early societies. In the past, when land was sparsely populated, people could return to hunting and gathering in years of famine or migrate to areas with abundant harvests. Now, these activities were likely controlled by the government. The majority of the harvest went to the ruling class; in years of plenty, people barely eked out a living, and in years of famine, they faced the possibility of starvation. Young people struggled to adapt, thus becoming violent. They even complained, “The children of the wealthy can eat, drink, and be merry; why should I work?”

Han Fei Zi’s “Five Vermin” states, “Now, there is an incompetent son. His parents are angry, but he does not change; the villagers scold him, but he is unmoved; his teachers instruct him, but he does not change. Even with the love of his parents, the guidance of the villagers, and the wisdom of his teachers—these three virtues combined—he remains unmoved, his hair untouched, and he does not change. Only when the officials of the prefecture wield their troops, apply the law, and seek out the wicked, does he become fearful, change his ways, and alter his behavior.” Parents, villagers, and teachers represent face-to-face interactions, reminiscent of primitive society. The fact that persuasion has no other recourse reflects the primitive society’s reluctance to impose its will on people. In contrast, the army of a secondary society can punish someone simply by labeling them a wicked person, thus creating a unified movement within that society. Marxism reveals that capitalist society keeps workers struggling to survive so that surplus value can be extracted. Similarly, the ruling class during the Warring States period knew this method, allowing those who worked the least to starve to death as examples of laziness to force others to work harder, thereby increasing the ruling class’s income. With today’s level of communication and human understanding, even a small number of people starving would make the world aware of it. During the Warring States period, communication was underdeveloped, and people were slow to grasp new issues. As a result, a large number of people actually starved to death to achieve the ruling class’s desired effect. Mencius recorded, “The kitchen has fat meat, the stable has fat horses, the people have the look of hunger, and the fields are littered with the corpses of the starved—this is like leading beasts to devour men.” (Mencius, King Hui of Liang, Part 1) Both “the fields are littered with the corpses of the starved” and “leading beasts to devour men” suggest a very large number of people starving to death.

Mencius’s analogy of those in power leading wild beasts to devour humans is inappropriate. Wild beasts are restrained by their nature to eat humans, stopping only when they are satiated. Human warfare is an escalating and endless killing spree. Therefore, Toynbee said, “Man’s chances of survival when facing a pack of tigers without any defense are far greater than when facing himself without any defense.” Mencius, like Lao Tzu, was a true pacifist, opposing war without any room for compromise. In the chapter “Li Lou I,” Mencius said, “Wars fought for land result in countless deaths in the fields; wars fought for cities result in countless deaths in the cities. This is what is meant by leading the land to eat human flesh—a crime unforgivable by death. Therefore, those skilled in warfare receive the highest punishment, those who unite with the feudal lords are next, and those who choose to govern with their talents and land are next.”

Mencius’s suggestion to punish those who organized land reclamation suggests that land reclamation at that time was for war, not to prevent famine or improve people’s lives. Mencius’s statement, “The people have a hungry look, and there are starving corpses in the fields,” likely reflects the needs of the ruling class during the Warring States period and is not seen in other periods. The result was that victorious states continuously reclaimed land, while defeated states suffered population losses, leading to vast tracts of land lying fallow. As Lao Tzu said, “Where an army is stationed, thorns and brambles grow; after a great army, there will surely be a year of famine.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 30) Mencius here uses the land as a metaphor for wild beasts, implying that the land eats human flesh and is perpetually satiated. Qin general Bai Qi once buried 400,000 surrendered soldiers alive, releasing only 240 child soldiers. Similarly, Qin used similar cruel methods to deal with those who disobeyed, albeit on a smaller scale. For example, the Records of the Grand Historian states that Qin Shi Huang buried 460 intellectuals alive at the slightest displeasure. This kind of regime, whose ability to devour people is billions of times greater than that of tigers and wolves, was fortunately not witnessed by Confucius. We believe that if Confucius had lived during the Warring States period, he would not have said anything about oppressive government being more ferocious than a tiger. Just like the difference between letters and the content of a book, a tiger and oppressive government are not on the same level and cannot be compared.

Mencius and Xunzi were both important inheritors of Confucianism. Living in the Warring States period, a time when a two-tiered social structure had emerged, they experienced the different political paths and lifestyles of this society, leading them to selectively adopt and discard aspects of Confucius’s thought. Confucius’s ideal of a egalitarian society became a part they rejected. In the original society, everyone had a responsibility to consider issues from the perspective of the entire society; therefore, Confucius always spoke as a member of society, representing the whole. Mencius and Xunzi, however, to adapt to the reality of class differentiation in this two-tiered society, could only speak on behalf of their own school of thought. They both elevated Confucianism to compete with other doctrines, especially Mencius, whose writings often have a righteous and assertive tone.

Confucius’s core concept is benevolence (仁), which, while not representing the entirety of human nature, is nonetheless a fundamental aspect of it. Mencius’s core concept is righteousness (义), a human ideal that transcends the constraints of human nature. Xunzi’s core concept is propriety (礼), a social system. Confucius remained true to the ideals of the original society, while it was only with Mencius and Xunzi that Confucianism finally developed into an objective, two-tiered social ideology external to human beings. However, although Confucianism adapted to the requirements of this two-tiered society, it still considered the original society as the ideal. Human nature underwent a qualitative change in this two-tiered society, giving rise to a large number of cunning and treacherous individuals who became deeply entrenched in society, penetrating the centers of power and harming the world. To continue teaching with the same benevolence and righteousness as Confucius did would be like casting pearls before swine. Even worse, some harbored a burning desire for power, yet claimed it was for the sake of the nation and the people. Adapting to this situation, Mencius and Xunzi could only develop Confucianism into an objective philosophical system external to human beings.

If Confucius sanctified the virtues of the gentleman, he and his students primarily used these sanctified virtues to demand of themselves, implying strict self-discipline, without separating themselves from others. Mencius, however, infinitely elevated the self-image of Confucian scholars, making them radiant and illuminating the ages. If Mencius also spoke of equality, it could only be a gift from sages and rulers, as in the saying, “Where a gentleman goes, he transforms; where he dwells, he becomes divine. He flows with heaven and earth; how can this be considered a small contribution?” (Mencius, Book 7, Part 1). In other words, a gentleman’s walk on earth instantly transforms the surrounding villagers into people in communion with the divine. A petty person walking the streets ten thousand times would not have a similar effect. Such a gentleman possesses supernatural abilities, almost like a god. This reflects Mencius’s adaptation to the societal requirement of a secondary society that needs a super idol.

Mencius emphasized the distinction between great men and small men. He stated that different parts of the body have distinctions of nobility and baseness, size and importance. Those whose senses are limited to sight and hearing are small men, while those who can use their minds to think can aspire to become great men. He said, “Those who labor with their minds govern others; those who labor with their strength are governed by others. Those who are governed by others feed others; those who govern others feed others. This is a universal principle.” (Mencius, Teng Wen Gong, Part 1) He also said, “Governing is not difficult; one must not offend powerful families.” (Mencius, Li Lou, Part 1) This sufficiently demonstrates that Mencius no longer advocated for social equality. “Those who labor with their minds govern others” is a common practice in two-tiered societies. Faced with the complexities of two-tiered societies and the fierce competition among various social forces, specialized knowledge and skills are needed to manage society—this is what Mencius meant by “laboring with the mind.”

In his essay “Wang Zhi” (王制), Xunzi discusses why cattle and horses cannot herd while humans can, stating that this is because humans have a system of “division,” meaning they can categorize themselves into different classes, rich and poor, noble and lowly. However, both cattle and horses, as well as humans, are social animals; their gregariousness is innate, stemming from the primordial society that is a coded legacy of humankind. This demonstrates Xunzi’s lack of clear understanding of primordial society in history, suggesting that a two-tiered society was the only form of human society.

The core concept of Xunzi’s philosophy is “li” (rites/propriety). The following quote best illustrates Xunzi’s understanding of the essence of a two-tiered social order: “Rites are based on the use of wealth and resources, on the distinction between the noble and the lowly, on the difference in quantity, and on the principle of severity. When the rules are elaborate and the application of emotions is simple, this is the grandeur of rites. When the rules are simple and the application of emotions is elaborate, this is the severity of rites.” (Xunzi, “On Rites”) This shows that Xunzi’s rule of rites was based on punishment and killing, using poverty, wealth, nobility, and lowliness as the standard for measuring society, driving society in a predetermined direction, and controlling human emotions within the framework of rules and regulations. This is no different from today’s social order. Xunzi also spoke of equality and impartiality, but this equality was within the framework of rites and regulations, just like the equality before the law we speak of today. In other words, the levels of poverty, wealth, nobility, and lowliness were a result of legal equality.

Xunzi criticized Mozi’s egalitarian ideas, believing them to be the root of poverty and chaos. Xunzi argued that Mozi’s frugality led to widespread poverty, therefore he believed that stimulating the desire for wealth through differences in wealth was the way to prosperity—in other words, “letting some people get rich first.” Xunzi further stated that a ruler should “share the burdens and labor equally with the people; otherwise, there will be no authority, and without authority, punishments will not be effective.” In short, a two-tiered society cannot function without differentiation; equality only leads to chaos. Fortunately, human nature cannot be suppressed, and the harsh realities of a two-tiered society cannot diminish the appeal and significance of the idea of an egalitarian society.

Unlike Mencius and Xunzi, Zhuangzi, a follower of Daoist thought who lived in a secondary society, was faithful to Laozi’s idea of a equitable society. Therefore, he could only be a recluse who escaped social reality.

IV. The Influence of Confucius’s Idea of Equal Social Distribution on Later Generations

Since the Qin and Han dynasties, the Confucian ideal of a egalitarian society has long influenced peasantry in Chinese history. “Equal land distribution and equal wealth distribution” often became a slogan used by leaders of uprisings to mobilize impoverished peasants. From the reign of Emperor Wu of the Western Han dynasty onwards, Confucianism remained the dominant ideology in China, allowing Confucius’s ideas of a egalitarian society to circulate, even though Confucius himself did not advocate the equal distribution of land and property. For example, in 471 AD, Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei dynasty issued the Equal Land Distribution Edict, distributing land according to the number of people. This land system was inherited by the Sui and Tang dynasties, but it was not until the reign of Empress Wu Zetian in the Tang dynasty that it was widely undermined, with land becoming concentrated in the hands of a few.

After the Chinese Communist Party seized power, it carried out land reform in the late 1940s and early 1950s. According to this land reform record, there were 4 million landlords in the country before the land reform, accounting for 3.79% of the total number of households. These landlords owned a total of 21.88 million mu of land, accounting for 4.75% of the total land area of the country. Among the landlord class, each person owned an average of 26.36 mu, while the average person of the middle peasant family owned 3.05 mu, that is, the former was only more than eight times that of the latter. This figure shows that after more than two thousand years of so-called “feudal autocracy”, more than 95% of the households were peasants and more than 90% of the land was in the hands of peasants. China at that time was a world of small self-cultivating peasants. This is the influence of Confucius’s equal society on later generations. [10]

If the vast majority of means of production and land during the Qing Dynasty were in the hands of small self-cultivating farmers, then much evidence suggests that the vast majority of wealth and means of production in contemporary China are in the hands of a very small number of people. The fact that most of the wealth and economic lifeline are in the hands of a few people is a common practice in the world today. The author once attended a sociology course in Canada, in which it was mentioned that in 1971, 113 companies controlled most of Canada’s economy and wealth. They owned 90% of banks, transportation, oil, etc. For example, in 1988, people of British, French, and other ethnicities accounted for 34%, 28%, and 38% of Canada’s population, respectively, while they accounted for 68%, 8%, and 5% of the economic elite, respectively. The economic elite status of people of British descent in Canada has not changed over the years, and they also dominate politics, daily life, etc. Therefore, the economic lifeline of Canada is in the hands of about one percent of the population, who live separately from ordinary people and form their own world. This situation probably applies to most countries, especially developed capitalist countries. [11]

Looking back at the situation in China before the land reform, we can see how incompatible Confucian thought is with modern thought, and we can cherish the preciousness of Confucianism’s idea of a equitable society. Marx proposed the theory of communism, believing that the ideal society in the future will return to the prehistoric communist society, but with the difference of being accompanied by great material abundance. In recent years, the progress of anthropological research has shown that the people of Qunsang in 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, chatting, etc. They are well-nourished and healthy. Much evidence shows that this is exactly how the prehistoric camp hunter-gatherer humans lived: 30,000 years ago, the average height of adult males was 177 cm and that of females was 165 cm; while in 1960, the average height of American men was 175 cm and that of females was 153 cm. Numerous pieces of evidence show that 30,000 years ago, humans knew how to control reproduction. [12] The material abundance caused by technological development can never keep up with the growth of desires and cannot compensate for the accumulation of wealth. As a result, poverty in the population increases. Material abundance in prehistoric societies refers to the availability of material resources for everyone; material abundance in modern societies, on the other hand, stems from the monopolization of material resources and their transformation into private wealth, resulting in the survival of the poor being controlled by wealthy individuals. Contemporary social problems have rekindled interest in the egalitarian societies of prehistoric times.

The rapid development of anthropology in recent years has also shown that human cultural history can be multi-path and multi-directional, and the idea of linear evolution along one direction has been gradually eliminated. Among the five levels of nomadic groups, tribes, chiefdoms, states, and empires, some ethnic groups directly formed chiefdoms from nomadic groups, and the chiefdoms disintegrated into tribes; the disintegration of the Roman Empire in Europe into the feudal separatism of the Middle Ages was actually a cultural progress. [13] The Apa Tannis mentioned above only had village organizations. Compared with the surrounding class societies, they were ahead of the curve in terms of freedom and equality, and their culture was equally complex. They were called a non-primitive society without a leader. In any case, the emergence of centralized power during the Warring States period was not the only choice in Chinese history. This process was contrary to Confucius’s idea of an equal society, and the Qin Shi Huang Mausoleum, which became the underground world, can be seen as evidence.

_______________________________

[1] You-Sheng Li (2005): A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoist Philosophy. London, Canada: Taoist Recovery Centre, 2005.

[2] Yu Sheng (2008): A New Perspective on Examining the Differences Between Eastern and Western Cultures. See the 7th issue of “Xue Deng” on this website, http://www.confucius2000.com.

[3] James Peoples, Garrick Bailey (1994): Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company. p302.

[4] James Woodburn (1982): Egalitarian Societies. Man, 17:431-451.

[5] Christopher Pyfe (2003): The Development of African States. In Goran Burenhult eds, Great Civilizations. San Francisco: Fog City Press, 2003. p209-214.

[6] Cui Li, ed. (2003): The Four Books. Beijing: Nationalities Publishing House. Page 245.

[7]Christoph Von Frer – Feurer-Haimendorf(1962): The Apa Tanis and Their Neighbors: A Primitive Civilization of the Eastern Himalayas. LondonRoutledge & K. Paul.

[8] Wang Yuzhe (2004): Ancient Chinese History. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

[9] Robert L. Carneiro (1970): A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733━738.

[10] Force (2003): China’s land reform. China Economic History Forum.

[11] Sociology textbook, Wheable Adult Education Centre, London, Canada, 2003.

[12] Marvin Harris (1977): Cannibals and Kings. New York: Random House. p4-25.

[13] DM Bondarenko, LE Grinin, AV Korotayev (2002): Alternative pathways of Social Evolution. IN: Social Evolution & History, Vol. 1 No. 1, July 2002, p54-79. Volgogrand, Russia: Uchitel Publishing House.