Socialistic Policies of Ancient China [3]: Exclusion of the Ruling Class from the Economic Field

-- Excerpts from The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School, Book VIII, Chap 28

EDITOR’S NOTE: Over a century ago, a Chinese scholar, named Chen Huan-Chang (陈焕章), wrote the book in English The Economic Principles of Confucius and his School as his PhD thesis at Columbia University and had it published in the USA. The book has had great impact on several generations of masterly Western scholars in economics and economic policies in the West. For instance, the idea of changpingchang (常平仓, or regulative storage), which had been practiced for thousands of years in ancient China and was mentioned in the book, was adopted by the US parliament in its 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, sponsored by Henry A. Wallace (USDA secretary, 1933-1940), who had learned of it from the said book.

As the book is focused on only one of the several major ancient Chinese schools of thought, some other essential content in traditional Chinese economics, therefore, could not be covered, such as those of Guan Zhong (管仲), the Legalist chancellor and reformer of Qi state and, according to the author of this book, the first person who had put forward a complete system of thought on economics. However, many important ideas and practices discussed in the book had actually been shared by some other major schools of thought. That of changpingchang mentioned above is one typical example.

While this book is a comprehensive treatment of the topic as indicated by its title, whole six chapters are devoted to “socialistic policies” in ancient Chinese economy, which practice might not be expected by contemporary readers. We will post excerpts from these chapters in installments. Hope it will shed some light on how today’s world economy should be reformed.

In modern times the socialist advocates modern socialism against capitalism for the laborers. In ancient times the Confucians advocated Confucian socialism against feudalism for the farmers. These two doctrines are the same in principle, because in the ancient days feudal lords were at the same capitalists, and the farmers were themselves laborers. But, when we compare these two doctrines, Confucianism seems to go further than modern socialism. There would be no capitalist under either. Under Confucianism the important means of production should belong to the public, and the ruling class should get only their salary. When the official class got their salary, however, they could accumulate it and make themselves capitalists. The modern socialist does not exclude salaried officials from the gainful occupations, but the Confucians excluded them entirely. We may say that the difference between the two is due to the fact that in ancient times aristocracy allowed the officials to hold their office by hereditary right, and that in modern times it is not so: hence the Confucians necessarily excluded them. This is true, and it would be the original idea of Confucius. But Confucian socialism means still more. In the first place, Confucianism does not allow aristocracy; no one should hold office by hereditary right. In the second place, even after the abolition of feudalism and aristocracy, and even for those temporary officials, this principle of exclusion was applied. From this it is clear that Confucian socialism goes further than modern socialism.

At the time of Confucius, feudalism prevailed over the whole empire. The feudal princes and the noble families occupied all the lands, so that they were the landlords. They owned also a great number of cattle and many other capital goods, so that they were the capitalists. There was small room, indeed, left for the common people. Moreover, they could oppress the people as they would, and the condition of the people must have been very bad. As they had all the political powers and social dignities, if they should become competitors with the people in the economic field, they would take all the profits, and the people could have no foothold to compete with them. Then the people would be reduced to the condition of actual slavery. Therefore, on the one hand, Confucius concentrated the political power in an absolute monarchy, and denied the hereditary right of office-holding, in order to destroy feudalism and to transform aristocracy to democracy. On the other, he excluded all officials from the economic field, in order to give full opportunity to the people.

The general law is as follows: "The emperor ought not to talk about whether he has wealth or not; the feudal princes ought not to talk about whether they have more wealth or less; and all the families which enjoy a public salary ought not to compete with the people for profit." ¹

Promoting the character of the ruling class to a higher ethical standard, taking away their favorable condition and powerful competition from the economic field, and giving a great chance to all common people, -- these are the objects of this principle. It has been a great scheme of social reform, and its tendency has been toward economic equality.

The principle of exclusion should be first applied to the rulers -- the emperor and the feudal prices. In the Spring and Autumn, there is a law stating that the emperor should not demand anything pecuniary from the feudal princes. When an emperor asked the price for anything, he was condemned by Confucius. The demand for money was condemned most of all. Since the emperor had the taxes from the imperial state and the tribute from the feudal states, he should be a most moderate man and an example to the whole empire. If the emperor should care for money, it would make the princes avaricious, the great officials miserly, and the students and common people sly. Therefore, the Record of Rites says: "The emperor plants only gourds and flowering plants, not such things as might be stored."²

In the Spring and Autumn, there is a condemnation of the fishery of Duke Yin of Lu. The value of his fishes amounted to one hundred catties of gold, which was equal to one million of copper money in the Han dynasty. Ho Hsiu states that he should not leave the government and compete for profit with the people. To do so is a great shame, and not fitting to a ruler.

According to Confucius, all the salaried officials should be excluded from the economic field. He says:

The superior man does not take all the profit, but leaves it for the people. It is said in the Canon of Poetry:

Hence, when a superior man is in office and enjoys its emoluments, he does not do farming.³

Leaving profit for the people is the fundamental idea of this principle. Its aim is to protect the weak against the strong. Therefore, when Confucius spoke of Tsang Wên-chung, a great official of Lu, he condemned him as wanting in virtue, because he made his concubines weave rush mats for sale.⁴ The "Great Learning" says: "He who keeps horses and a carriage does not look after fowls and pigs. The family which keeps stores of ice does not rear cattle or sheep."5 The first sentence refers to the one who is beginning to be a great official; and the second, to the great official and minister. Indeed, none of the officials should do any business.

The best example illustrating the exclusion of officials from gainful occupation is given by Kung-yi Hsiu. After taking the professorship of Lu, he became the prime minister of Duke Mu (145-176 A. K. or 407-376 B. C.). He was the first one who enacted the Confucian theory of exclusion as a legal law. Under his administration, the salaried officials were not allowed to compete for profit with the people. When some one gave him a fish, he declined,...

The exclusion of officials from all gain has been carried into actual law by many dynasties. During the Tsin dynasty, after Wu Ti reunited the whole empire (831, or 280 A. D.), he decreed that the princes and dukes should regard their feudal estates as their families, and that they should not have lands and houses in the imperial capital as private property. The only two things each should have were the residence within the city and the pasture near the suburb. Then he made the following limitation: In the capital, the princes, the dukes, and the marquises were allowed to have one residence. If their residence was not in the city, but out of it, it was allowed to remain there. Near the capital, those who had a great feudal estate were allowed to have one thousand five hundred acres of suburban land; those of second estate, one thousand acres; and those of small estate, seven hundred acres.

There was also a limitation upon the ownership of land by officials. The amount of land was in accordance with their rank. To the first rank five thousand acres were given; to the second, four thousand five hundred acres; to the third, four thousand acres; ...and to the ninth, the last, one thousand acres. Moreover, their descendants had the hereditary right to hold the land, and the limit of time was also according to their rank. The longest hereditary right came down through nine generations, and the shortest through three generations. ¹

During the Tang dynasty, in 1175 (624 A. D.), a law was enacted that all the families which had received salaries were not allowed to compete for gain with the people. ²

According to the Law Code of the Ts’ing Dynasty, all the officials are not allowed to buy land and houses in those places where they hold their office.

The transgressor shall be beaten with a small stick fifty times. He shall be deprived of his office, and his land or house shall be confiscated. ³

If officials lend money at interest, or hold property on mortgage, although conforming to the legal rate of interest, they shall be punished with eighty blows with the long stick. If they take interest beyond the legal rate, such interest shall be considered as a bribe, and they shall be punished accordingly. ⁴

If the officials buy salt from the government and sell it to the people for the sake of making profit, they shall be punished with one hundred blows of the long stick and banished to another part of the same province for three years. Their salt shall be confiscated. ⁵ All these laws keep the officials from competing with the people.

... this principle of excluding officials from gainful occupation has a great influence on Chinese economic life. In China’s history there are very few officials who accumulated a great fortune in any way they could. Modesty and purity were the general spirit of the officials. As they did not compete with the common people for profits, the people had much more chance to compete among themselves, and enjoyed full freedom of economic activity without being in unfavorable competition with those who had added power....