Chapter 6 Chapter 4 On the Qin and Han Roots of the Backward Problem in Mainland China
I personally study history.It has been half a century since I was admitted to university in 1939, so I can be said to be an out-and-out professional historian.However, in half a century, I have personally returned to the motherland to participate in a historical conference, and this is the third time.The purpose of my return, of course, is to study first.The second is to make some academic reports.But I can't help but ask myself: What do I need to learn at this age?What can I report if I have no expertise in learning? My own answer is that I should not come here to study one or two topics. What I want to learn should be a detailed understanding of the entire academic style and situation of the history circle of the motherland.Second point, so what can I report?It’s not easy to come back from thousands of miles. Showing your ugly face to the sages and reporting a little bit of personal research is a drop in the ocean, and I think I’m a bit disappointed in the kindness of the seniors who hosted the conference to invite me.So I want to talk about big issues, big topics.There is no conclusion to the big topic.Hu Shi said "Bold assumptions, careful verification", but the proof is endless. Today I just want to put forward some "bold assumptions", so as to teach the same article on the history of the motherland.
On the 5th of last month, he participated in the inaugural meeting of the "Historical Society for Overseas Chinese Students" in New York.The students who presided over the meeting asked me to give a welcome speech, so I was very cautious.He once prepared an academic lecture with forty-six footnotes titled "Three Mainstreams of Contemporary Chinese Historiography".I personally believe that there are roughly three main streams of Chinese historiography that has global status today.The first is the traditional Chinese historiography that has been inherited from Zuo Qiuming and Sima Qian in the past to Professor Qian Mu in Taiwan today; Western "Sinology", "Modern Western Chinese Historiography" formed by gradual modernization and social science.The first school still has masters in today's mainland and Taiwan; the second school is exclusive to today's mainland; the main force of the third school is still overseas, and part of it is also in Taiwan.
Personally, I think that the above three factions have different strengths and weaknesses, and everyone can learn from each other's strengths and make up for their weaknesses.Unfortunately, there is obviously a big gap between these three factions.There is simply a trend of each going his own way and not getting in touch with each other.Therefore, I encouraged the more than 80 young members of the "Historical Society of Overseas Chinese Students" who attended the conference to strive to become the "fourth mainstream" of modern Chinese historiography that runs through the three schools-the fourth mainstream that came from behind to take all the three schools.
Because the fourth mainstream is still growing, it can be ignored.Let's just look at how different the above three schools are in their views on ancient Chinese and medieval history.Disagreement does not impede academic research, but it seems normal for each to do its own thing and not communicate with each other. ——In particular, there is a great need to review the academic "three obstacles" between the Marxist school in mainland China and the overseas modern Western history school.
Based on traditional Chinese historiography, Chinese Marxist historians generally believe that ancient China existed as a "slave society" and "feudal society" that human society must go through in the development of Marx, Enley and Liehe.It can be said that no one among Marxist historians does not recognize the absolute existence of these two societies in traditional China.The focus of their research and discussion is only how to divide the boundary between the two periods; and the question of how long the upper limit of the slavery period and the lower limit of feudal society extend to.
As for the methods of studying history, the Marxist historical school also focuses on "class analysis" and "class struggle", and other methods are mostly irrelevant.
How deep is the essence and method of the Marxist school of history? evoked serious reactions.The traditional schools of history don’t pay attention to it, and they don’t care about it; the modern Western schools of Chinese history, which focus on overseas, also completely ignore it.
To give a simple example: Professors He Bingdi, Yu Yingshi, and Xu Zhuoyun, who are relatively well-known Chinese-American scholars who study ancient Chinese history, in their respective works, have nothing to say about the "slavery system" that Chinese historians often talk about. do not mention.Other foreign scholars from the nineteenth century to the "Cambridge History of China" in the 1980s only underestimated it.Strictly speaking, it is equivalent to the last word.
When talking about ancient Chinese history on the mainland, it’s okay to not know the “slavery system”; but overseas, they don’t mention it at all.Why do they go to such extremes?This is worth our "history readers" sighing and thinking twice.
The author himself is not a major in ancient history.But I am a general history teacher, and I should be familiar with ancient history.As a "historical reader", I cannot but be surprised by the sharp contrast between publications at home and abroad.What is even more strange is that I have seen that both sides are in their own way, completely ignoring or even contemptuous of the other's views and methods. ——Is this due to the traditional mentality of ignoring literati; or is it caused by academic sectarianism; or is it caused by political interference with academics?
In short, this kind of non-communication still exists in the academic circles at home and abroad.Since the "Third Plenary Session" of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1978, communication at home and abroad has gradually opened up, but in the field of historians, especially "traditional history" (traditional history), in the eyes of us history readers, the In terms of viewpoints, methods, and theories, there are still "three obstacles".If there is a serious "disconnection" in academic thinking, the "communication" in politics, economy, and even military affairs is superficial and temporary.If this "cultural knot" is not resolved, political knots, economic knots, and even military knots cannot be eliminated.
Why is this cultural knot so strong?We readers, watching from the sidelines, can roughly put forward several hypotheses.The first is the unbreakable prejudice of overseas historians against the "Marxist school of history".When it comes to Marxism, people immediately think of "politics in command".They believe that under the rule of Marxism, all academics serve politics.Academics that serve politics put the cart before the horse, and there is no objective research.What kind of academics is there for academics that lose the independence of objective research? So they ignore them.From indifference to contempt, just ignore it.
The second point is the problem of the "Marxist School of History" itself.Before conceiving, Marxist historians must first affirm an "absolute" right and wrong.In terms of ancient human history, both "slave society" and "feudal society" are absolute "yes"; other sayings are absolute "no".Since right and wrong are absolute, social science in the twentieth century has been pulled back to the age of sophistry in ancient Greece, and has fallen into the framework of "proving truth" from "searching for truth".Since the truth can only be proved but not searched for, Aristotle's "dialectics" has become the only magic weapon to prove the truth.Since the existence of "God" in the Middle Ages can be proved by dialectics, there is no need to say more about the truth below God.There are many concepts in Marxist history, such as "class struggle", which is the continuation of the absolute truth of "God" in the Middle Ages.Since the concept is absolute, only "faith" is allowed, and "exploration" is not allowed, then science becomes theology.It is unacceptable for social scientists to go back and explore history with theological principles.In the second half of the twentieth century, when historical research gradually became socially scientific, the history of Marxism and the history of social science were incompatible.Mutual indifference and contempt for each other due to incompatibility.Each other is what it is, and they will never communicate with each other.
Historians at home and abroad are all responsible for this strange phenomenon of old age and death.The responsibility of overseas historians is to give up eating because of choking—to deny them all because of their dissatisfaction with the arbitrary style of Marxist historiography.The responsibility of mainland Marxist historians is to "anti-liberation"—in a great country under the protection of four million "Liberation Army", in a great era when everything (including farmers, workers and women) is pursuing liberation, However, what the historians have pursued in the past thirty years is an "anti-liberation" that goes against the current.If you oppose the "liberation movement" in history, you will be self-enclosed; if you are self-enclosed, it will be difficult to communicate at home and abroad, and even you will never communicate with each other.
In the field of ancient Chinese history, the two key concepts of "slave society" and "feudal society" are the most difficult to liberate.
Did "Slave Society" Exist in Ancient China?The affirmation of it by the Marxist historical school is absolute.Socialist historians who hold a negative attitude are denounced as "Trotskyites"; non-socialist historians are called "bourgeois historians".To firmly affirm this point of view, Guo Moruo should be the first to be recommended.From the time he wrote in the 1920s to the time when he died of illness in the 1970s, Guo was unwavering in his conclusions about this ancient history.
However, Guo can only provide some incomplete "material evidence" for this concept in modern historiography-according to documentary records and archaeological unearthed physical evidence.But these evidences are not complete.For example, Guo believes that the greatest physical evidence is "human sacrifice".Human martyrdom can never prove the existence of "slavery".The "Mausoleum of Qin Shihuang" to be excavated today may actually reveal the remains of tens of thousands of martyrs when it is developed in the future, but the first emperor was not a "slave master".As for those who were buried alive by the first emperor's ancestors—as mourned in "The Poem of the Yellow Bird"—not all of them were slaves.
As for the documentary evidence cited by Guo, such as the training of "people" as "slaves", "the lowly and the expensive", and "the value of slaves", etc., they are all fragmented.In short, the sporadic biting of words cannot support such a serious conclusion as to the existence of slavery.After Guo's death, the new young scholars may be more powerful than Guo's, but many of their researches are also based on the principle of "proving the truth", and there is no breakthrough in Guo's old theory of "finding the truth". .
Furthermore, apart from looking for evidence in the literature, Guo did not mention the evidence in "comparative history" or the evidence in "social science".
"Slavery" is a socioeconomic institution.Under what objective conditions can this social and economic system exist and be productive?At this point we will start with "comparative history".In ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and modern America, which features of slavery absolutely existed and absolutely did not exist are worthy of our comparative study.For example, slave owners in modern America usually traded black slaves from Africa.In fact, they have also experimented with using local materials to serve "red slaves" (indigenous Indians) and trafficking "yellow slaves" (smuggling so-called "pigs" from China), but they failed. What is the reason?It is incomprehensible that if foreigners fail to create "yellow slaves", the yellow people can enslave each other on a large scale without riots and defections. ——There is no record of "slave rebellion" and defection in the ancient history of our country, but "peasant rebellion" is endless in history. How can this bipolar phenomenon be explained in terms of comparative history?
A slave is an unfree laborer and producer.Do they have the burden of family and the responsibility of looking up to others?If this kind of encumbrance, this kind of responsibility, the slave owner will take it on his behalf.Under what production conditions, what kind of surplus can the slave owner earn?It is forbidden by the laws of social science to only "profit" and not "loss" through slave production; who would be willing to trade at a loss if only "loss" is not "profit"?According to the experience of modern America, only the "cotton crop" in modern America can support slavery, and slave labor is the least economical labor.However, the crops on the Loess Plateau in ancient my country can all have the economic effect of cotton crops in the Americas that "cotton is king" (Cotton is King) back then?Guo did not solve these problems in comparative history.
In addition, large-scale collective farms using slave labor are a modern enterprise of "mass production".Mass production requires "scientific" or "quite scientific" management.But in human history, before the rise of capitalism, there is no record of scientific management of mass production!In short, Guo Moruo did not solve these social science problems.If one problem is not resolved, the existence of a slave society in China will always be just a hypothesis.Slave production did exist in ancient China, and there are still remnants today.But the sporadic slave labor and the "slave society" where slave labor is the main force of production are two different things.
What is the definition of "feudal"?
Another key concept in Marxist historiography is "feudalism".
What is "feudalism"? We did not find a clear definition in the "Chinese Marxist History School" (emphasis on the word "China") that emerged after the May Fourth Movement.But when Marx himself used this term, what he took for granted should be the "feudal system" that occurred in medieval Europe.This medieval European-style feudal system, according to the traditional interpretation of Western scholars, is only a management method, not a social and economic system in itself.Under this system, the relationship of political subordination is only the relationship between the emperor and the princes, and between the princes and the vassals, and there is no direct relationship between the government and the people.Peasants were only attached to the land, which was the private property of vassals, princes, or (directly) the emperor.
This similar jurisdictional system originally occurred in Medieval Europe.There is no exact system and no exact name.European historians between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries called them "feudalism" in general.Modern Chinese intellectuals read European history and suddenly discovered that ancient China had a similar system.This system also has an ancient name called "feudalism".Feudalists, feudal monarchs and founding states.Although this system of feudalism and state building had been "abolished" by Emperor Qin Shi as early as the third century BC, but "feudalism" and "feudalism" sound similar and have the same meaning.Therefore, this ancient name with a history of more than 2,000 years was officially borrowed as the official translation of the current name "feudalism" which is only more than 200 years old.Fortunately, there can be coincidences between the sounds and meanings of the two.
However, in the 1920s and 1930s, when the "Chinese Marxist School of History" developed rapidly, the term "feudalism" gradually deteriorated.In the end it became a general term for all old and outdated bad customs and habits.Today, in the vocabulary of the "Chinese Marxist School of History", the so-called "feudalism" is obviously neither the "feudalism" in medieval Europe, nor the "feudalism" in ancient China where the monarchs established the country.It has become a new term specially created by Chinese Marxists slightly influenced by the Soviet Union.
In order to affirm this new term, which is neither Central nor Western, nor has a clear definition, Guo Mooruo once used great strength and in-depth research to prove its existence, and drew the dividing line between it and the slave era between the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. The lower limit of the "feudal era" was extended to the end of Hua; the "semi-feudal society" was extended to 1949.
Should China be included in the "feudal society" for more than 2,000 years from the Warring States Period to the "Eve of Liberation"?
The "traditional Chinese school of history" disagrees.Because according to the traditional definition of "feuding the monarch and establishing the country", they believed that China's "feudal system" had been abolished as early as the third century AD when Qin Shihuang "abolished feudalism and established prefectures and counties".In the past two thousand years, feudalism has been replaced by a "system of prefectures and counties".The county system is a civil service system.
The "Modern Western School of Chinese History" also feels the same here.They compared European feudalism in the Western Middle Ages, and they also believed that Chinese feudalism only flourished in the Western Zhou Dynasty and declined in the Spring and Autumn Period.By the time of the Warring States Period, it had begun to collapse, and was finally "abolished" by Emperor Qin Shihuang.In ancient China, the system that replaced feudalism was a "centralized" bureaucracy.
The difference between the "civilian system" (or bureaucratic system) and the "feudal system" is that civil servants are civil servants who are regularly appointed and removed by the central government, while feudal monarchs are the owners of a kind of private land property that is "hereditary".After these lords were entrusted in different ways, they had to fulfill various obligations to their superior masters, such as paying tribute, defending the frontier, raising wages, forced labor... and so on.But the masters cannot arbitrarily appoint or dismiss them or interfere with their internal management affairs.
After the fall of the Qin Dynasty and the rise of the Han Dynasty, one country, two systems was adopted at the beginning of the Han Dynasty, and "county" and "country" coexisted.In the past, the feudal system had a partial resurgence.After the Seven Kingdoms Rebellion, the country of princes and princes in the sea has a false name.Since then, the centralized civil service system of the Qin and Han dynasties has remained unchanged for two thousand years.Even today, the KMT and the Communist Party still inherit this ancient system in government organization.
Mao Zedong said in a poem. "Thousands of years still practice Qin law and government." The meaning of this poem is roughly correct.It’s just that after the Republic of China, the Beiyang government and the Kuomintang and the Communist Party modified the ancient “Qin system”, but it was far less perfect than the orthodox “Qin system” of the Qing Empire.
From the perspective of a simple government system, China's traditional centralized civil service system has been continuously improved for more than two thousand years, and it can be said to be very perfect in the Qing Dynasty.After the Republic of China, the party members scolded how corrupt the Qing system was. In fact, impartial historians calmly and carefully analyzed that in many aspects such as checks and balances, imperial examinations, appointment and dismissal of officials, the governments of the KMT and the Communist Party were far inferior.The main reason is that the system, which has been slowly improved over two thousand years, cannot be completely negated by cursing in a few words.To benefit the people and bring peace to all ages, it is not possible to create miracles with a single outline or doctrine.
From the perspective of comparative history, this kind of centralized civil service system is not unique to China.The Mogul Empire in India before the British invasion also practiced this system.It's just that their history is too shallow, and they have never developed into a highly skilled environment like the Chinese system.
Here the author wants to emphasize that the "centralized civil service system" and "feudal system" are two stages in history, and their political roles are also irrelevant. Instead of "feudalism", a higher political form than feudalism.
"Feudalism" is a kind of primitive tribal system evolved from "tribalism" with no division of responsibilities, loose organization, and centered on the individual lord.The "centralized civil service system" is a political system in a high-level civilization with strict organization, clear responsibilities, excellent efficiency, and brilliant rules.It is not the same as the outdated and primitive feudal system.It is wrong for Mr. Guo Moruo to confuse these two systems.Since Guo was not interested in comparative history and social science, he could not see the difference between the two.
As for our Chinese tradition, after the collapse of the "feudal system", why did not—as Marx imagined—produce a "capitalism"; instead, such a "Qin system" came into being?And it has been going for two thousand years, and it is still not bad?
It turns out that the direction of human history development is the result of a combination of numerous objective and subjective factors.What Marx imagined was only one side of it.
People are always people.He started from the individual's food and lust, which has what Marx called uniformity in group life.There was a kind of "feudal system" in the social life of white people in medieval Europe; the yellow people in ancient East Asia also established a similar "feudal system".However, after the collapse of the feudal system in Europe, an "urban middle class" (urban middle class) gradually grew up, which gave birth to a kind of "mercantilism".Mercantilism leads to "capitalism".
However, in ancient China, after the collapse of the feudal system, there was no urban middle class, let alone mercantilism, and certainly no capitalism.On the contrary, a "light business doctrine" has emerged in China.Mercantilism deters the burgeoning urban middle class.Without the urban middle class, capitalism would not have been possible.
In such a strong contrast in comparative history, Marx only saw the western side and ignored the eastern side.Guo Moruo ignored the difference between East and West, and installed the historical experience of white people in the West into Chinese history.
The term "light commercialism" was not created by the author indiscriminately.It is a historical fact that existed more than two thousand years ago.The slogan of Shang Yang's reform in the fourth century BC was "strengthening the root and suppressing the end".It is agriculture at first, and industry and commerce at the end. "Suppressing the end" is "light businessism", which is difficult for people who do business.
More than a hundred years after Shang Jun was torn apart by a chariot, Qin Shihuang unified China by benefiting from the "strong foundation".After the unification, he intensified the promotion of the light business doctrine, and moved all the rich households in the world to Xianyang to control them.
After the death of the first emperor, the Han Dynasty inherited the Qin system, and the light business doctrine did not change slightly.In the Wudang Kingdom of the Han Dynasty, merchants were classified as "the end of the four peoples", and the national policy also officially stated that "emphasis on agriculture and despise business".After Han Wu's death, under the protection of General Huo Guangyi, the Chinese business circles demanded redress, wanted to change this traditional policy of discriminatory business, and created a big debate against the salt and iron monopoly (see "Salt and Iron Theory").But the government does not allow redress, and those who do business are still suppressed.This pressure has been suppressed for two thousand years and is not allowed to stand up.
When we read the history books, we can’t help but cover up and ask: these "slightly inferior literary talents" but mighty people in the world, why do they have to make trouble for those who do small business?This answer can also be found in comparative history.Because the politicians who advocate emphasizing agriculture over business are not limited to us Qin Huang Han Wu and Sang Hongyang!Two thousand years later, President Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States and later a saint of democratic politics, also insisted on the same idea.We tried to compare the English translation of "On Salt and Iron" with the original text of the debate on business policy between Jefferson and Hamilton, the father of American capitalism, and found that the words and sentences used between the two are almost the same. ——The position of Dr. Sang Hongyang is also the position of President Jefferson.Although Dr. Sang pays more attention to the national defense economy, President Jie is slightly more inclined to the other side of social morality.
Therefore, from ancient China to modern America, the concept and policy of "emphasizing agriculture over commerce" is understandable.The question is why the policy of ancient China can be carried out for two thousand years, but the modern American Jefferson tried it, but failed. American historians once laughed at Jefferson, saying that he "won the battle but lost the battle against Hamilton" war".
Long story short.Ancient China was able to implement its policy of emphasizing agriculture and despising commerce, but the United States today is unable to do so because Dr. Sang Hongyang has a centralized dictatorship machine behind him, which is powerful and powerful.It can enforce any "policy"! Isn't it "emphasis on agriculture rather than business"?It can even depose a hundred schools of thought, uphold Confucianism alone, implement one country, two systems or one country, one system; even three red flags, people's communes...etc.The state has absolute power over the people.Drive east to east, drive west to west, and the people all bow their heads and obey orders.A single central document can implement national policies to the end.
In this "Qin system" where power is concentrated, not only the central government has unlimited power; The people enjoy absolute power within their respective jurisdictions.
The state apparatus that Dr. Sang Hongyang relies on is actually a golden tower of power.Inside the big tower, there are countless small towers of different sizes, which are connected up and down and restrained layer by layer.The lower levels obey the higher levels, and the whole country obeys the central government.Under the strict control of such a golden bell jar and iron cloth shirt, a few small salt merchants and small iron dealers are just a few wandering souls at the bottom of the pot.
Not hereby.In order to implement the withdrawal policy for a long time, the government has to work hard on academic thinking and find theories.Combining the power of concubine and ideology, the two-pronged approach embeds the class concept of scholars, farmers, businessmen and commerce deep into the soul of the people, making it an eternal belief and way of life, which will remain unchanged for thousands of years-this "slightly less literary" Emperor Qin, Han and Wu are also true. did it.
Historians try to "conceptualize" this unique historical development in traditional China, which is called "the state is stronger than society" (as opposed to the "society is stronger than the state" in the Western European and North American traditions).For social development, everything depends on the state.The country is a domineering old woman; society is a submissive daughter-in-law—to borrow a term from Marxism-Leninism, we can also say that the social form is the "superstructure" of the country!Knowing this, we can understand how Dr. Sang Hongyang succeeded in the salt and iron monopoly policy.
But we should also know that Dr. Sang, the immutable state machine, was originally used to prevent the development of industry and commerce.Whether it can also do the opposite, revitalize industry and commerce, and take off economically is another question.
Looking back, why did President Jefferson's policy of emphasizing agriculture and ignoring business not work?That is, President Jefferson lacked Dr. Sang Hongyang's domestically produced centralized state machine.He has only a "separation of powers" democratic federal government.If the democratic government cannot be dictatorial, the people can act freely.When the people have freedom, they look desperately at money.In this way, the middle class and mercantilism will rise, capitalism will emerge, and the great president's idea of valuing agriculture and commerce will come to nothing.
The American system is a remnant of the "British-American tradition".In early Britain, and even in the whole of Western Europe, the development of this social phenomenon was even more serious.Marx took a fancy to this Western European experience, and believed that the emergence of mercantilism and capitalism was an "inevitable" trend; it was an "objective reality" in materialist philosophy.Human beings can neither prevent the demon of capitalism, but only remedy it later. This is the gist of Marxism!
Little do they know that the "necessity" in social development that Ma Shi saw has a prerequisite.This prerequisite is that the "state" cannot manage society.If the power of the state was as strong as that of China in the era of Emperor Qin, Han and Wu mentioned in the previous section, this "inevitability" would not be inevitable.
Marx did not travel beyond Western Europe during his lifetime, and his research scope did not reach China.He never thought that the "objective reality" discovered by their materialists in social development could be offset by the "subjective will" of a few idealists in ancient China.Dong Zhongshu, Gongsun Hong, Sang Hongyang and other Confucian scholars' nonsense, and Emperor Liu Che's outrageous and unreasonable imperial edict can wipe out the imminent Chinese capitalism.
Furthermore, after Marx's death, the phenomenon of social development in North America and Western Europe was beyond his expectation.It did not occur to him that capitalism could also be corrected.Labor and capital can benefit both, and it doesn't have to be a life-and-death struggle.In short, the social sciences have developed too fast in the twentieth century.It is not covered by the minds of some straight-line social thinkers of the nineteenth century.Lenin believed in Marxism, he developed the theory of class struggle to the highest peak, and created the Soviet model of the dictatorship of the proletariat.Mao Zedong followed the example of Marxism-Leninism and his ancestors described Qinhuang, Hanwu, and developed the centralized state machine to the highest level that surpassed Qinhuang, Hanwu, and Lenin and Stalin.With a machine in hand, Mao Gong can do everything.
This state apparatus is indeed omnipotent in some respects.But is there really a universal machine in the world?In terms of operation, it also has its dead ends—the dead ends are the genes that force China to "lag behind".
It should be noted that our invincible machine was originally designed and invented for "emphasis on agriculture and despise business".Its continuous maintenance and continuous improvement are also advancing towards the same goal.Since it emphasizes agriculture over business and prevents the emergence of capitalism, the main target of this machine's suppression and eradication is the "urban middle class".Therefore, its historical tasks are: ① prevent the "urban middle class" before its birth; ② kill the "middle class" in its embryonic stage;
This one-defense, one-hoe, and one-destruction has been done for two thousand years.Under the operation of this big machine, our Chinese agricultural empire will never produce an "urban middle class".
Friends who are not interested in comparative social history may ask, are the traditional Chinese "big landlords" not the "middle class"?Said: No.It is also a nursing home for traditional big landlords, professional bureaucrats or alternate bureaucrats.If the bright and bright children and grandchildren of the generation are the young people who are trained in the professional bureaucratic youth cadre class.Young people in school are all candidates for professional bureaucrats (emphasis on the word "professional", if the generation has no way of making a living other than being an official).And professional bureaucrats are also the eagle dogs of autocratic emperors.
Traditional Chinese emperors have always favored their appearance and even encouraged big landlords.First, the big landlords served as a "safety valve" for professional bureaucrats to retire and return to their hometowns, and also as a place for reserve bureaucrats to reserve talents.Second, there are no historical examples of landlord rebellion in Chinese history. This group of doughty rich men has never hindered the public security.Third, China's "primogeni-ture" applies only to those who have a family, not to those who have a family.The death of the father and the distribution of wealth, coupled with polygamy, the scourge of land concentration is only taken for granted by revolutionaries.Social historians who speak by evidence have not found sufficient evidence for this.The traditional small landlords in China are usually only "little poor" on the verge of starvation; the big landlords who engage in land concentration are almost all "bureaucratic landlords", and self-cultivating farmers and small landlords without fame have no share.Bureaucrats "become officials for one generation and lay bricks for three generations", and their descendants cannot form a class or engage in politics. They are not the "urban middle class" as mentioned in the comparative historiography of China and the West.Our "urban middle class" can be said to have been crushed to death by the above-mentioned state machine for two thousand years.As soon as the modern era sprouted, it was wiped out by the counter-revolutionaries.
Is it a pity that there is a lack of a "middle class" in the history of our country?Said: "It's not a pity."On the contrary, that's something we can be proud of.For two thousand years, the splendid civilization of our agricultural empire is unparalleled in the world and admired by the whole world. But today, we feel stretched and hard to get back when we want to take off economically, industrialize, and modernize.Because in the history of the modern world economy, there is only one case where industrialization and modernization can really take off to the extent that they were all led by an urban middle class.Western Europe and North America took the lead, followed by Japan.The "four little dragons" (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan) that have recently emerged are no exception.
The mainland of our motherland has a vast land, rich resources, and abundant talents, but it seems to be the main reason for the notoriety of "backwardness".The mainland is modernizing, industrializing, getting rich, and multiplying... everything is ready, and it only owes the "east wind" of the "urban middle class".Unless the domestic leaders can break the unprecedented precedent in comparative history and create an industrialization and modernization without a middle class, then this east wind seems inevitable.
Let a small number of people get rich first, do some processing in special economic zones, without the prospect of a strong, self-motivated urban middle class rising, these small private enterprises will not be able to grow.In the end, it is inevitable that she is a "sissy", unable to sing big axis plays.
As for whether China can achieve industrialization and modernization "without a middle class"?China may be able to create its own, but there is no such case in human history—the Soviet Union has been engaged in it for 60 years since the New Economic Policy, and there is no other way to praise it except for the defense industry.Gorbachev reviewed the past, and now even Lenin's portrait has been removed, and he turned back to Deng's opening up.China has followed the example of the Soviet Union for more than 30 years, but it also realized that today is not yesterday, and turned around and started "self-employed".What is self-employed?The self-employed are the cells of the "urban middle class".During the Qin and Han Dynasties, this kind of cells once expanded and made waves, and it was almost out of control.Lu Buwei, a self-employed man, actually broke into the court of Emperor Qin, and became the prime minister himself, and his son became the first emperor.
In order to protect themselves, the royal family of the Han Dynasty saw the horror of self-employed people in economic enterprises, so they suppressed them during the three dynasties of Wu Zhaoxuan.
However, there is a limit to how Han doctors suppress self-employed people.He allows self-employed individuals to "get rich first", but you are never allowed to form a "class".Even if you are allowed to "get rich first" and you become a "Yangzhou salt merchant", Lord Qianlong will still check you.Therefore, we have been doing self-employment economy of "getting rich first" for two thousand years, and we have always been a sissy. We can't create modern enterprises, and we can't achieve "economic take-off" like the "four little dragons". It is too far; for the United States, it is even beyond imagination.
The prosperity of these economically advanced countries and regions all originated from a small number of "self-employed" who "get rich first"; when there are more self-employed, they form political forces and become the "urban middle class"; The "majority" in society absorbs the rest of the rural population, which leads to the staged middle class in the countryside.When the distinction between the upper, middle and lower classes in a country becomes a "jujube stone" shape, with small ends and a large middle, it will become a "dictatorship of the middle class".
In the United States today, less than one-tenth of the entire population has an annual income of US$100,000, and only 13 percent of households earn less than twelve thousand yuan.总而言之，则美国家庭收入在万元以上，十万元以下者多至全人口百分之七十七有奇。全人口“人均”收入多至一万五千元，美国就成个不折不扣的“万元户”的中产阶级专政的局面了——全民衣食足，礼义兴。社会不平，以法节之，这样便使今日美国变成世界上最大的“福利国家”（welfare state），全国每年用于救济鳏寡孤独、贫穷失业的“救助金”，实超过其他各国，包括全部社会主义国家的总和而有余！其猫狗食人食（肉类），亦超过中印两国人食肉类的总和！
“福利国”不是“社会主义国家”；但是二者对贫苦人民的照拂，却前者超乎后者。所以国家富强、人民康乐，以全国生产毛额的多寡为第一要务。“人均”收入提高，“分配”是次一步，也是并不太重要的次一步。孔子说“不患寡而患不均”，这是农业社会中全民都在饥饿线上的讲法。中国大陆过去三十年中的许多问题，都是孔夫子这句在二十世纪并不实用的话所引起来的。孔子反对法治，因为法可以使“民免而无耻”。其实他老人家所反对只是朴素的“刑法”。
孔子又提倡礼教，认为一切社会行为要“以礼节之”；个人修身也“不如好礼”。礼事实上则是与朴素的“民法”相关之一环。孔子生在农业经济时代，一切以不成文法的“礼”来“调节”，就足够了。在一个复杂的工商业社会里，法治就不可避免了。
所以在一个中产阶级主政的国家，与生产发展并驾齐驱的则是衣食足（经济）、礼义兴（教育文化），接着才有法治和民主。
可是“城市中产阶级”并不是天上掉下来的，也不是反动派制造出来和无产阶级对抗的。相反的，它是由于经济发展，把无产阶级逐渐提升上去的。今日家庭收入超过一般知识分子的美国产业工人（industrial workers），早已不是无产阶级——他们是不折不扣的中产阶级的劳动者，也是美国反共的主力军。
近三十年来“城市中产阶级”在亚洲“四条小龙”中的崛起，也是笔者这一批海外学人所亲眼见到的。不算什么稀罕。
所以我们祖国大陆“落后”的主要问题无他，缺少一个自发自励的中产阶级故也。然则大陆上能否步台、港、南韩、新加坡后尘，扶植起一个“城市中产阶级”呢?
不愿在中国扶植一个“中产阶级”，我们这个“秦制度”有没有他途可循呢？这两点便是笔者拙文中，不愿乱作结论的大胆假设了。
关于前一点，国中领导阶层本有意为之，但行起来至为不易。须知大陆这个自商鞅而下一脉相承的中央绝对集权的“秦制度”，至毛泽东主席治下已登峰造极。这一制度原为锄灭中产阶级，打击工商发展而设计的。现在怎可摇身一变，于旦夕之间就成为振兴工业，扶植中产阶级的保母呢？这是以子之矛、攻子之盾。安有善果？
中产阶级的初期工业化的必要条件是减少管制、大幅开放——美国当年所谓“最好的政府，就是最不管事的政府”是也。中国这个铁桶一般的“秦制度”，管人及于床笫之私，它何时才能开放到容忍中产阶级崛起的程度？吾人不知也。大幅开放与灭退管制（de - control or de - centralize），其以九七后之香港为试点乎？否则那个烫手山芋如何掌握？
但是截至目前为止，中国当轴似尚无丝毫意图，来变更那个“以吏为师”的“秦制度”老传统。在这个老框框里，能否搞出个工业化、现代化来——脱胎换骨，吾为中华民族创造历史的智慧，馨香以祝之。