Uncovering Chinese Anarchy Part 1: Introduction & the Radical Confucius and Libertarian Confucian Tradition
Introduction
「 曩古之世，無君無臣，穿井而飲，耕田而食，日出而作，日入而息，泛然不繫，恢爾自得，不競不營，無榮無辱。」
“In the earliest times, there was neither lord nor subjects. Wells were dug for drinking-water, the fields were plowed for food, work began at sunrise and ceased at sunset; everyone was free and at ease; neither competing with each other nor scheming against each other, and no one was either glorified or humiliated.”
— Bao Jingyan (鮑敬言), in Neither Lord Nor Subject, trans. by Etienne Balazs, c. 200–400 CE
The anti-authoritarian instinct has been with humanity since the beginning. No matter the culture, there is a resistant piece of humanity that refuses to die. No degree of oppression, opposition, or ridicule can destroy it.
Yet all too often the discipline of history focuses exclusively on power from above, ignoring this instinct. Nationalistic, and Great Man Theories of history have come and gone, but sociocultural history still tends to forget those who refused and resisted power. An anti-authoritarian perspective is sorely needed to balance out these viewpoints.
Indispensable to an anti-authoritarian lens is the ideology of Anarchism, the pursuit of anarchy. Contrary to its colloquial use, anarchy is not chaos. Rather, it is a condition without authority and hierarchy. Anarchism, therefore, is the ideology of anti-authoritarianism and anti-hierarchy. It claims there is a way for the world to be arranged without any sort of domination, authority or oppression.
This series, then, is an inquiry into anarchy in China. It has an eye towards thinkers and practitioners of anti-authoritarianism in any way. It aims to see anarchy.
Seeing anarchy requires an anti-authoritarian lens. Without one, it becomes easy to fall into a pit of seeing authority and hierarchy everywhere. We begin to say things like “your doctor has authority over medicine.” No, they have expertise over medicine, but they do not command the field of medicine. All too often people will assume organizations and leadership are authority, when those are demonstrably different. Organizing does not require an authority. When friends go out to eat dinner, they don’t need anyone to command them on what to eat. At a larger scale, horizontal movements like Occupy did not need authorities either. Leadership, too, is not authority. Do we not all wish for “leadership by example?” Isn’t a bad leader one that only commands and issues orders and never does anything of their own?
The point of using an anarchist lens on history is the liberation of our anti-authoritarian thought itself from authority. It is a fine chisel that seeks to remove all the useless rock in the way of the statue in order for us to see the sculpture, in order for us to see the anti-hierarchical aspects clearly, no matter how fine of a detail it may be. That is why this series concentrates on anarchy.
However, there’s another aim to this series. It centers anarchy in China. While later this series will discuss Anarchism proper in China, before the modern era it is hard to describe ancient or medieval anti-authoritarians as anarchists, especially since the term was used deliberately only beginning in the 18th century.
Additionally, Anarchism currently has a Eurocentrist focus, in spite of its historical global reach and popularity in places like East Asia and Latin America. Thinkers such as Mao Zedong were even anarchist leaning at one point.¹ While this is changing rapidly as the movement regains a global foothold, historical surveys of anarchism still tend to focus on Europe.²
But the anti-authoritarian instinct was present everywhere, and soon after Anarchism went global, arriving in its new host societies, people rapidly found anti-authoritarian and libertarian (I’ll get back to this word) currents in their deep past. In East Asia, almost all anarchists noted Daoism and Zen Buddhism as having anarchic tendencies, with some even being Buddhist and anarchist like Taixu, Uchiyama Gudo, or Jun Tsuji. Some even saw libertarian elements in Confucianism.
If you’re from the U.S., then my use of the word libertarian above will seem contradictory. In the U.S. Libertarianism has been corrupted³ from its original sense into something meaning right-wing anti-statism, without the all-encompassing anti-authoritarianism that includes capitalism, gender, or race. However outside of the U.S., libertarian is still synonymous with anarchist, or refers to exactly the same group. When I say libertarian, it will be in reference to its original, synonymous meaning with Anarchism. The use of the term has also diverged a bit within anarchist usage — libertarian typically refers to an anti-authoritarian bend, but leaving certain authoritarian elements open as options, and I will tend to use it to mean that.
But I digress. While we may speak of anarchic, libertarian, anti-authoritarian, or proto-anarchist tendencies in the past, it would be an anachronism to say these are anarchist movements. To my knowledge, no such genuinely complete anti-hierarchy/anti-authoritarian expression was made explicit in history until Proudhon, except for perhaps one brief moment by post-Han dynasty “Daoists,” which we will investigate later in the series. Instead we can only say we are studying instances nearing anarchy, or tendencies towards anarchy.
But while I have my sight set on anarchy in China, truth be told, there are deep connections beyond it, in broader Asia. Unfortunately, the language skills and cultural literacy to investigate those connections is beyond me and probably any individual person. Besides, China is continental in size, and its influence equally as large. There’s a lot to focus on here already, and it is worthwhile to see the vast richness of the anti-authoritarian tradition of a non-Western culture to see if we can glean some insights from it.
China and Asia, however, may also have had an indirect influence upon the development of the modern Anarchist movement. It’s possible the Daodejing was indirectly influential upon Adam Smith, whose ideas eventually would leave a trace upon anarchism. Or maybe the Daodejing was directly read by Max Stirner and made it into his Egoism. Buddhism too as a South and East Asian philosophy and religion would have outsized influence upon the Existentialists, such as Nietszche, or Pessimists such as Schopenhauer, whose philosophy would be incorporated into the Anarcho-Nihilist tendency. So a further reason for studying China, where Daoism and Buddhism had an outsized influence, is that it may perhaps shine a light into the origins of the modern Anarchism movement.
And lastly, there is a cultural and historical gap forming between westerners and their understanding, and arguably appropriation of Daoism and Buddhism. Unfortunately this includes both anarchists and right wingers. Right wing think tanks have sought to utilize Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism and Daoism as both a faux-cultural literacy and as a form of outreach.⁴ They appropriate these ideas and philosophies for the sake of conservatism. Unfortunately for them, these ideas are not inherently conservative, and this series aims to contest such a revision of their legacy, not to mention the problematic tones of appropriating this deep cultural legacy for the sake of oppression.
It is also displeasing to see these ideas appropriated by anarchists themselves. While I am not sure who began this, I would cite Ursula K. Le Guin as the one to have begun muddying the waters with Daoism and anarchism. Le Guin did not speak a lick of Chinese when she “translated” the Daodejing. She strained and abused other translations to force out an anarchist interpretation that may not even be there. She partook in that longstanding tradition of translating the Daodejing by feeling rather than by meaning. The Daodejing has over 80 English translations, with almost 70 of them by persons who can read neither Classical or modern Chinese. All of this taps into a longstanding, fetishistic, and racist legacy of tapping into “Eastern Wisdom,” not only speaking over the voices of East Asian anarchists, but silencing them. Several anarchists frequently cite Le Guin’s translation as a justification of their ideas, neglecting the genuine libertarian elements for a falsehood based on mistranslation and stereotype. Meanwhile, this ignores the very many English language surveys of East Asian anarchists who themselves discussed the anarchist elements of Daoism and Buddhism, and were themselves hesitant to equate the two or cite these historical ideas in full support of anarchism.⁵ The quite poorly argued Daoism and Anarchism by John A. Rapp is built upon some misinterpretations from Le Guin and was rightfully disavowed by historians. I myself as a reader of Classical Chinese am to a degree insulted by the “translation,” to not even speak of its offense to my own identity as a Chinese person.
But it doesn’t end with the Daodejing. Because some individualist anarchists associated with C4SS have done a similar, though at least largely accurate assessment of Confucianism.⁶ While better in terms of accuracy, they too lack the language and historical training to contextualize Confucianism, and partially commit some historical misinterpretations regarding the degree of Libertarian Confucian ideas.
Without the ability to read either modern Chinese or Classical Chinese, it is only inevitable that such mistakes and problematic ideas come through. As a historian, translator, and Chinese person, I feel then it is only appropriate for me to tell this historical story, with accuracy in mind this time. For there are many ideas to liberate here, and tomes worth writing about the ideas that can be uncovered here for anarchy, Anarchism, and libertarian thought. It will be a very long journey, but as “Laozi”⁷ said:
「千里之行，始於足下」，
“The Journey of a Thousand Miles, Begins with a Single Step”
— Chapter 64 of the Daodejing.
The Beginning: Confucius
In any history of ideas from China, or even East Asia, we must always begin with Confucius. This may come as a surprise for a series focused on anti-authoritarian thought, but Confucius cannot be ignored in even this context, despite the many (partly correct) stereotypes regarding him.
Because Confucius initiated Chinese philosophy proper, most (arguably all) Chinese philosophy reacts to him, including most anti-authoritarian strains of thinking in China. But more deeply, though this may come as some surprise for most anarchists, Confucius, his thought, and his followers have presented genuinely libertarian elements that have had a somewhat significant effect historically. There are pieces of Confucius’s thought that is genuinely anti-authoritarian.
A Linguistic Note on “Confucianism”
If you were especially attentive, you’ll notice that I did not say “Confucianism.” That’s because in China and East Asia, the term “Confucianism” does not exist. Most sinologists are extremely disappointed with many of the received English terms for Chinese concepts because they are a minefield of poor connotations, and Confucianism is one such example. In East Asia and China, the word for what we call Confucianism is 儒家 (Rujia), which when glossed means scholar-philosophy. In other words, it means scholarism — the philosophy of being a scholar. The word doesn’t even mention Confucius in any way. The reason why in English and other European languages the term is some variant of Confucianism is because the Jesuits deliberately tried to equate Confucianism and Confucius into a one-to-one correspondence with Christianity and Christ.⁸
While “Confucianism” does give its first thinker due credit, it actually poorly captures the understanding of what Confucianism is genuinely about. It also neglects the influence of Mencius, Xunzi, and later thinkers known as the Neo-Confucians such as Zhu Xi upon the tradition. Actually, Neo-Confucianism suffers the same problem, it is an English term for a group of philosophies that have several names, such as 宋明里学 (Song Ming Lixue) meaning the Teachings of Principle of the Song and Ming dynasty, or perhaps 心学 (Xinxue) meaning the Teachings of the Mind, none of which refer to Confucius either.
To be clear, Confucius had an enormous influence upon what would become Confucianism and the later Neo-Confucianists, but he was not the only thinker. His ideas initiated a tradition of thought that tends to justify itself by appealing to what Confucius said, but arguably many of his followers misinterpret or misunderstood his own philosophy (if what quotations we have are genuine statements made by Confucius). The Neo-Confucianists wrote about Confucius nearly 1500 years after the original Confucius, and nearly 800 years after his philosophical tradition became secondary to Daoism and Buddhism. With such a historical gap, it’s only understandable for historical misunderstandings to crop up.
For the remainder of this series, I will still use Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism to refer to the tradition of thought descended from Confucius, since using scholarism or principleism or mindism sound atrocious and I don’t want to muddy the waters any further. But it is worth keeping in mind the linguistics, and realizing “Confucianism” is more of a philosophical tradition descended from Confucius that many other thinkers contributed to, rather than being Confucius’s philosophy. It is therefore no contradiction that what Confucius believed and what later Confucianists believed diverged.
Before Confucius
There were several thinkers of note before Confucius, yet we deem Confucius the initiator of Chinese Philosophy. This is for several reasons.
For one, we don’t know of many of the thinkers before Confucius or their ideas. Confucius’s philosophy have, if we believe the Analects preserve some of his thoughts accurately, largely come down to us through philosophical preservation. Perhaps the two most significant predecessors to Confucius were Guan Zhong, a minister of the state of Qi who may have had some similar ideas to Confucius and to the later Legalists, and Sun Wu (who purportedly wrote the Art of War).
However Guan Zhong, while a real person, probably did not write down (all of) the received text that claims he wrote it, the Guanzi, so how much of his philosophy is genuinely his is debated.⁹ And Sun Wu is possibly not a real person.¹⁰ In Ancient China, most writers liked to attribute their thought or teachings to an ancient master, pretending as if they were only transmitting older knowledge. Confucius himself claimed this (though he was actually misinterpreting the Zhou dynasty teachings he claimed to be transmitting).
Confucius’s thought then is probably the first direct record of ideas from a Chinese thinker that we have on record. Its influence is also huge. It affected the policies of the Han dynasty, and went on to influence the Song, Ming, Qing, and greater East Asian world.
What I wish to bring to attention here, however, was that Confucius was a radical for his time. The reason he is considered the first genuine philosopher of China was because he inspired debate and inquiry that led to conclusions contrary to the status quo, surpassed the simplistic reasoning of his predecessors, and brought in an awareness that society could change.
Before Confucius, the dominant set of ideas might be best termed Aristocratic Chivalry. While not a cohesive system of logic or thought, this was a set of proper behaviors condoned by the elite of the Zhou Kingdom. An expression of the main idea behind Aristocratic Chivalry can be found in the Spring and Autumn Annals: “the great affairs of state are war and sacrifice.”
This statement might seem opaque, but it was a reflection of Zhou aristocratic society at the time. The Zhou Kingdom was a state founded upon blood and conquest. Taking over the domains of the Shang, the Zhou continued expanding via chariot warfare, and conquered vast eastern and southern regions. Warfare was the predominant domain of the elite, since chariot warfare was quite an expensive and skill-heavy form of war.¹¹ Given such a bloody reality, it would almost be a given that the elites viewed the purpose of the state was for war.
The quote also indicates the importance of sacrifice. The Shang and Zhou dynasties had animal sacrifices, but in the Shang to Early Zhou, human sacrifice was also practiced. A purpose of warfare was to procure sacrifices due to the connection of bloodletting with satiating the thirst of the ancestors. Thus in that statement, we see an expression of a society centered around warfare, religion, and the state.
Implied is the extreme level of inequality within such a society. The King and aristocrats were on top, and the remainder of society lay beneath them. Besides the power and authority of the King, the aristocrats were bound by familial ties. They intermarried and knew each other intimately. In addition, they were governed by a common elite culture reinforced by rituals. By ritual I mean highly elaborate protocols that maintained relationships between them. Such rituals include dismounting when one’s enemy fell out of their chariot to engage in honorable combat, or surrendering by symbolically tying one’s hands up when a rival elite defeated them. Though the Zhou aristocracy were quite intimate, they frequently fell into disputes. The King and his administration was largely for handling disputes between elites. Thus the propagation of ritual protocols was one way to regulate between elites in the Kingdom. As a result, Aristocratic Chivalry was a highly hierarchical, statist, and militaristic set of ideas.
In 771 BCE, however, the capital of the Zhou fell to an alliance between a dissatisfied aristocrat and non-Zhou peoples. The mighty Zhou, by this point in decline, collapsed to the point that they were practically only symbolically in power. Moving east, they possessed little military might and were entirely reliant upon their vassal states. These vassal states began to take advantage of the power vacuum, and a period of conquest began. The aristocrats now began to parasitize and annex their neighbors, resulting in vast states. Where ritual governed relations between elites, in the so-called Spring and Autumn period, the Zhou elite began to backstab, assassinate, and commit to bloodthirsty and power-hungry strategies for advantage. Warfare transitioned from ritualized chariot combat to mass slaughters of infantry devoid of any pretense of chivalry.
In this new and vicious environment, a new set of ideas appeared that we can call Militarism. Like Aristocratic Chivalry, it was not very cohesive or systemic. It was, however, a very simplistic response to the times. It is best elaborated in the Art of War, where the opening lines begin with “The military is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, the way to safety or ruin. Thus it is a subject which cannot be neglected.” Whereas previously warfare was a matter of honor and contest by elites, in the new infantry warfare paradigm, military generals who acquired their position by skill and merit rose and conducted warfare. To them, there was no religious component to war. War was merely war, and one’s conduct in warfare was to be decided by strategy more than honor.
This line of the Sunzi can be viewed as a response to the line in the Spring and Autumn Annals, wherein it splits warfare from its religious/ritual connotations. Warfare was now its entirely own domain, the domain of the general. No longer was ritual to be a part of warfare. It was a zero-sum game, where winning by any means was all that mattered.
Militarism was equally a hierarchical, statist, and militarized set of ideas. It also had very simplistic and cruel ideas for controlling soldiers that would be extended to the greater populace. The military training of the time was atrociously bad, with the average footsoldier often being handed a spear and then marched off to war. As a result, discipline was quite low, and when faced with an enemy army, soldiers were prone to rout. Sunzi’s advice was to deliberately trap one’s own army so that they fought harder when faced with life and death. It was a cruel reflection of this reality.
Militarism’s promotion of military discipline also expanded warfare to commoners through greater authoritarian and centralized control mechanisms. Since so many new people were needed for the military machine, Militarism advocated for more law and punishment. This greatly increased state power, while inculcating a distrust of people. Whereas the old Aristocratic Chivalry was premised on some aristocratic autonomy, Militarism forced people into its demands and was a direct form of domination. It didn’t believe highly in people, only in authority, and above else war.
It is from the background of these two extraordinarily hierarchical sets of ideas that Confucius’s ideas arose from.
The Radical Confucius
From such a background, Confucius’s theory was positively radical. While Confucius always claimed his own ideas were nothing new, he was mistaken. He likely misread or misinterpreted many of the teachings from the earlier Western Zhou, which were by then several centuries old, because his ideas have very little relation with their actual practice.
But yet again I digress. Confucius’s ideas had an anti-authoritarian streak to them. A short summary of what anti-authoritarian elements were present in Confucius’s thought include:
- An anti-aristocratic attitude
- Idealizing a weaker state and a stronger belief in human ability to maintain order of their own accord
- Providing groundwork for individualism in China
- Fostering debate and inquiry over blind acceptance of a status quo
- And giving some very basic autonomy for women at the time (this was an era where most women did not even get a personal name)
Confucius’s Life
Much of Confucius’s own life shaped him towards such anti-aristocratic views.¹² He actually was a member of the lower aristocracy, known as the shi (士). In his day, these lower aristocracy had suddenly acquired a potential avenue towards power and influence. The old aristocracy had begun to wipe each other out, and states frequently fell into civil war. Whereas in the time of the Western Zhou, conflicts would lead to a ransom and reinstatement of aristocratic families, in the zero-sum atmosphere of the Spring and Autumn period, whole families were either slaughtered, enslaved, or impressed into farmers. War then tended to completely eliminate higher aristocratic families, and this led to the lower aristocracy of shi to be called up into positions of military and political importance.¹³
Confucius, while born a shi, experienced great poverty in his youth. With that encounter with poverty, it seems he developed very different views from his fellow aristocrats. In an aristocratic society, it’s typical for the aristocracy to basically solidify themselves as noble by nature. They are simply better by blood, and commoners are therefore lesser genetically.
What Confucius did was that he dismantled this rigid and unchangeable dichotomy of aristocrat andcommoner, replacing it with a moral hierarchy. While this does mean, unsurprisingly, he did not reach an anarchist position, this idea practically undid the entire previous system of aristocracy that had reigned for hundreds of years.
In poverty, Confucius’s only source of joy seemed to be his love of learning. He obtained a reputation as a great teacher, and though he eventually got a position in his home state of Lu, he also was so obstinate and resistant regarding frivolous cruelty or carelessness by the rulers that he wound up leaving his position and traveling around to try and convince a ruler to implement his ideas, teaching students all the while as a form of income. He was ultimately unsuccessful within his lifetime.
He spent much of his life learning about rituals and teaching, and occasionally serving as a state consultant. His students wound up in high and mighty places in other states, which earned him a reputation for guaranteeing success to shi. Eventually so many students tried to learn from him for the sole purpose of a recommendation letter Confucius would grow to dislike that opportunistic attitude.
He passed, learning and teaching to his last days.
Anti-authoritarian Elements in the Analects
Based upon this background, what did Confucius say, and how anti-authoritarian was it?
Our primary source for Confucius’s sayings come from the Analects. How accurate they are to the original sayings of Confucius is a bit doubtful, as Confucius’s ideas were retained and transmitted orally for some time before they were written down. Even then, there were multiple versions of the Analects.¹⁴ During the Han dynasty, each region had a specialist in that region’s specific variant of the Analects. The version that has survived to us is syncretic, and it’s unclear how much of the Analects is genuinely Confucius’s. However, we can acknowledge that the teachings of the Analects does in some way reflect Confucius’s ideas given its legacy, and all subsequent “Confucians” all read the Analects in deep acknowledgement of the Master’s wisdom.
Several interpretations thus arose, but the one that most people have been saddled with is the Neo-Confucian interpretation. They however wrote over a thousand years after Confucius and likely committed several mistakes. Instead, this reading will be based upon the original historical context and particularly look at the anti-authoritarian elements within.
A Summary of Confucius
Confucius essentially presents a program of moral cultivation. He emphasized the ability to “learn” and achieve virtuous conduct. His ideas then center around this program and its implications.
Key to his ideas is the idea of Virtue, which is the typical translation for the term De (德). De contains many implications hard to render in English. It is an internal power that is simultaneously a moral force. One with much De within can capably be more moral in their conduct. One with little De would be considered a morally petty person (小人, xiaoren, literally meaning small person). The xiaoren is compared to one with much De, who was deemed a Junzi (君子). While in English, this is typically translated as Gentleman, in Chinese, these characters are actually appropriated from old aristocratic titles. Taken together, they mean prince or lord. While a surface-level interpretation might lead us to believe Confucius was just a peddler of aristocratic ideas, actually he seemed to be attempting to move the language used in his day towards one that was more egalitarian. Junzi, rather than meaning lord, here means someone who is morally and virtuously lord-like, hence the translation as Gentleman. It refers not to a societal position, but to a degree of virtuousness. This was partly why his philosophy gained several followers. It was boldly flaunting terms that had been proper forms of address for people considered genetically superior to others for centuries. Beyond Junzi, a rarer and higher position of moral character was the Sage (聖, sheng). Such persons were so rare that they were in a class above ordinary Junzi, being born so. Example of Sages were some old mythical kings, such as Yao and Shun.
As we can see, a moral hierarchy was present in Confucius’s philosophy, but he presented a method by which ordinary people, anybody, could become a Junzi. While sages were born, anybody could potentially become a Gentleman. It is precisely this idea that dismantled the aristocracy, destroying any possibility of their legitimacy. Nobody but the Sages were born moral; most people had to “learn.” This does not simply mean rote memorization or gaining knowledge, but in internalizing and acting appropriately with the knowledge. Being morally superior was thus not merely inborn, but a matter of acquisition.
Confucius kept in mind social and political aspects to moral cultivation. In disagreement with Militarism, he advocated for less law. He viewed the problem with law as precisely its hammer-like ability to punish, from which people learned nothing and hence didn’t improve morally. Instead, he advocated ritual (li, 禮). But while Confucius thought his rituals were the same as the Zhou’s, he actually deviated from them. Rituals for Confucius are not merely the elaborate codes of the Zhou, but customs, habits, traditions, and social norms. Such rituals then actively cultivate one’s moral character, by forcing them to internalize their principles by matter of repetition.
It’s also worth noting here that in my account of Confucius’s thought, I have deliberately not stated the “Five Relations.” These are the relations of father to son, husband to wife, elder brother to younger brother, friend to friend, and ruler to ruled. These five relations are actually a myth that the Neo-Confucians created based upon a misreading of Mencius and projecting it backwards upon Confucius. They are deeply hierarchical and oppressive, and they are stated nowhere within The Analects.¹⁵
From this outline of Confucius, we can begin to pick out the aspects of Confucius’s thought that lent it towards an anti-authoritarian bend.
A Libertarian Reading of the Analects
I will largely be borrowing translations from the Hackett Classics Analects: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries trans. by Edward Slingerland.
The Master said, “I have never denied instruction to anyone who, of their own accord, offered up as little as a bundle of silk or bit of cured meat” — The Analects, 7.7
The above statement demonstrates Confucius’s at the time radical embrace of poverty. Various other statements indicate that Confucius would rather be impoverished than contradictory to his moral ideals:
The Master said, “A scholar-official who has set his heart upon the Way, but who is still ashamed of having shabby clothing or meager rations, is not worth engaging in discussion.” — The Analects, 4.9
This uncompromising idealism is hardly anti-authoritarian, but in an age of aristocrats, where one’s birth qualified them as higher than others, such statements were directly flaunting the social order at the time. In passage 11.1, Confucius directly insults the aristocratic order:
The Master said, “Those of my disciples who were first to enter into study of ritual and music with me were simple rustics, whereas those who entered later were aristocrats. If I had to employ them [in public office], I would prefer the first.”
We can see here a defiant streak inherent within Confucius. However, though he was hostile to the aristocratic order, Confucius never was anti-hierarchy. He was very much a ‘justified’ hierarchy believer, though his only preferred hierarchy was his own moral system. However, that moral hierarchy did allow for a theoretically socially fluid set of relations, based upon people’s propensity to learn their way up the hierarchy, and thereafter such people with virtuous conduct would be justified to lead and order society:
The Master said, “One who rules through the power of Virtue is analogous to the Pole Star: it simply remains in its place and receives the homage of the myriad lesser stars” — The Analects, 2.1
This statement also demonstrates another key idea of Confucius — resistance to law. While Confucius does not dismantle the idea of rulership nor government, he did wish to reduce the extent of law:
The Master said, “If you try to guide the common people with coercive regulations and keep them in line with punishments, the common people will become evasive and will have no sense of shame. If, however, you guide them with Virtue, and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame and will rectify themselves” — The Analects, 2.3
Here too we get a statement that has appeals to anti-authoritarianism. While he lessens the law, Confucius intends for social shame to do the work of coercion, which is hardly a large improvement. Regardless, Confucius does not believe in legal legitimacy but moral legitimacy:
The Master said, “When the ruler is correct, his will is put into effect without the need for official orders. When the ruler’s person is not correct, he will not be obeyed no matter how many orders he issues.” — The Analects, 13.6
In fact, at points, Confucius explicitly advocates for breaking the law:
The Duke of She said to Confucius, “Among my people there is one we call ‘Upright Gong.’ When his father stole a sheep, he reported him to the authorities.”
Confucius replied, “Among my people, those who we consider ‘upright’ are different from this: fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. ‘Uprightness’ is to be found in this.” — The Analects, 13.18
This is open advocacy of nepotism and family over the state or government. So while Confucius is certainly not opposed to the state, his ideas and philosophy actually do not desire or depend upon the state. The state is a means to an end to Confucius, a vehicle for moral uplift upon a large population. However we must be cautious and note that Confucius still built most of his philosophy upon the existence of the state. It is hardly anti-statist. It is rather state-agnostic.
To better illustrate its state-agnosticism, let’s examine Confucius’s ideal of a good life. Passage 11.26 perhaps expresses this best.
Zilu, Zengxi, Ran Qiu, and Zihua were seated in attendance. The Master said to them, “Because I am older than any of you, no one is willing to employ me. Yet you, too, often complain, ‘No one appreciates me.’ Well, if someone were to appreciate you, what would you do?”
Zilu spoke up immediately. “If I were given charge of a state of a thousand chariots — even one hemmed in between powerful states, suffering from armed invasions and afflicted by famine — before three years were up I could infuse its people with courage and a sense of what is right.”
The Master smiled at him [in disapproval]. He then turned to Ran Qiu. “You, Ran Qiu!” he said, “What would you do?”
Ran Qiu answered, “If I were given charge of a state sixty or seventy — or even fifty or sixty — square li in area, before three years were up I could see that the people would have all that they needed. As for instructing its people in ritual practice and music, this is a task that would have to await the arrival of a gentleman.”
The Master then turned to Zihua. “You Zihua! What would you do?”
Zihua answered, “I am not saying that I would actually be able to do it, but my wish, at least, would be to learn it. I would like to serve as a minor functionary — properly clad in ceremonial cap and gown — in ceremonies at the ancestral temple, or at diplomatic gatherings.”
The Master then turned to Zengxi. “You Zengxi! What would you do?”
Zengxi [replied] “I would choose to do something quite different from any of the other three…In the third month of Spring, once the Spring garments have been completed, I should like to assemble a company of five or six young men and six or seven boys to go bathe in the Yi River and enjoy the breeze upon the Rain Dance Altar, and then return singing to the Master’s house.”
The Master sighed deeply, saying, “I am with Zengxi!”
Confucius’s philosophy thus has the goal of living a good life, not governance. In this way it differs from both Aristocratic Chivalry and Militarism.
But doesn’t Confucius have a reputation of being conservative? After all he claimed his own philosophy was nothing new. While it might be more accurate to call Confucius a traditionalist, he was actually not opposed to innovation. Confucius merely wished to emphasize tradition, not to ossify it. Regardless, while Confucius couches his entire set of ideas in conservative language, the ideas are actually innovative. Such an understanding may help us understand 7.28 from the Analects:
The Master said, “No doubt there are those who try to innovate without acquiring knowledge, but this is a fault I do not possess. I listen widely, and then pick out that which is excellent in order to follow it; I see many things, and then remember them. This constitutes a second-best knowledge”
Notice that he states traditionalism as a second-best knowledge. So what is the best? The best refers to those who are born with knowledge. That is, those who are born with a grasp of the circumstances and are able to create something new, because they intuitively grasp the concepts and ideas of the older ways. Just take a look at 7.20:
The Master said, “I am not someone who was born with knowledge. I simply love antiquity, and diligently look there with knowledge.”
When reading through the Analects he also discusses a student of his named Yan Hui. Yan Hui is the exact person who has the implied first-best knowledge. Throughout the whole text, Confucius himself is in awe of Yan Hui, and many of his students refuse to compare themselves to him. Passage 5.9 is demonstrative:
The Master said to Zigong, “Who is better, you or Yan Hui?” Zigong answered, “How dare I even think of comparing myself to Hui? Hui learns one thing and thereby understands ten. I learn one thing and thereby understand two.” The Master said, “No, you are not as good as Hui. Neither of us is as good as Hui. [my emphasis]”
And Yan Hui’s premature death created a great deal of sorrow for Confucius, which further belies how highly regarded Yan Hui and his ability to intuitively understand was for Confucius.
Still, though Confucius allows for change and innovation, it can only be through appeals to tradition. This is indeed a countervailing force against the libertarian elements of Confucianism. This grants authority to tradition, which limits change. By contrast the Platonic tradition of a higher idealistic realm permits enormous change, as shown in the utopia of The Republic.¹⁶ Nevertheless, this did not stop the libertarian elements of Confucianism from rearing their heads later in history. However Confucius’s emphasis on learning (not rote memorization or regurgitation, but of internalizing an idea and acting in accordance with it), meant that Confucius produced the first philosophical tradition of China, wherein learning and reading, and the study of questions on life, nature, and society and questioning the way things were could begin in earnest in Chinese history.
But perhaps we’re neglecting the more negative portion of Confucius, the blind spot of a someone born in a society where women commonly did not have a personal name. What was Confucius’s views on women and the family? No libertarian or anarchist ideas after all can neglect the role of patriarchy and gender discrimination as a hierarchy. And Confucius does not prove radical here, as most people would probably guess:
The Master said, “Women and servants are particularly hard to manage: if you are too familiar with them, they grow insolent, but if you are too distant they grow resentful.” — The Analects, 17.25
Such a passage is clearly misogynistic, and other aspects to Confucius’s conduct point to a deep misogyny that was not exactly far from the tree for his time, such as his only taking on male students. No defense is necessary nor will be stated here. However, Confucius’s ideas were on the path towards a more anarchic tendency with regards to gender. The early Confucians were actually a (hair-breadth) less misogynistic/sexist than their counterparts in other traditions, such as the Daoists.¹⁷ This is shown in Mencius where he remarks that women are sometimes more easily able to attain virtue than men. This less-worse view was because Confucius’s functionalist view of society. People for Confucius are most virtuous when they fulfill their societal role best. This is what Confucius called the ‘rectification of names’ where what is accords with what ought:
Zilu asked, “If the Duke of Wei were to employ you to serve in the government of his state, what would be your first priority?”
The Master answered, “It would, of course, be the rectification of names…If names are not rectified, speech will not accord with reality; when speech does not accord with reality, things will not be successfully accomplished…This is why the Junzi only applies names that can be properly spoken and assures that what he says can be properly put into action. The Junzi simply guards against arbitrariness in his speech.” — The Analects, 13.3
For women, that meant they were ideally supposed to fulfill their societal role as mothers and caregivers to children. For many women, this was to a degree achievable, which made them noticeably “more virtuous” in Confucius’s eyes.¹⁸ It’s also worth noting that at this time, Chinese views on parents were also more gender egalitarian, with both parents having some role in the raising of their children. Confucius thus emphasizes the father to son relationship in the Analects, and we implicitly get the understanding that the mother to son relationship is equally important through such stories as Mencius’s mother. The Odes too also depict an ideal of equality between marriage partners, and Confucius viewed the Odes as a piece of undeniable ancient wisdom.¹⁹
This leads us to the family, which is often said to be the base unit of Confucianism and Chinese society rather than the individual. The justification for a domineering parenting style many East Asian people complain about can be located here, and at the same time can be defeated by Confucius. Let us be clear, Confucius absolutely adheres to a parent-child authority:
The Master said, “In serving your parents you may gently remonstrate with them. However, once it becomes apparent that they have not taken your criticism to heart you should be respectful and not oppose them, and follow their lead diligently without resentment.” — The Analects, 4.18
and combined with the former statement where he openly states the family is above the law, one understands that parents have great authority over the child. However, there is a key passage that actually defeats this absolute authority that parents are allowed to command their children with:
Master Yizi asked about filial piety. The Master replied, “Do not disobey.” Later Fan Chi was driving the Master’s chariot. The Master said to him, “Just now Meng Yizi asked me about filial piety, and I answered, ‘Do not disobey.’ ” Fan Chi said, “What did you mean by that?” The Master replied, “When your parents are alive, serve them in accordance with the rites; [my emphasis] when they pass away, bury them in accordance with the rites and sacrifice to them in accordance to the rites.” — The Analects, 2.5
Many East Asian parents quote the first and forget the second half. What Confucius was saying is that something is above parents and families — ritual propriety, acting in accordance with what is proper. If I may indulge myself, perhaps a good counter to some Eastern Asian parents’ domineering is quoting 2.5’s second half, and reminding them that what is proper today is not domination but of being equals and open to one’s children.
Actually, another significant contribution of Confucius is the introduction of a degree of individualism to China.²⁰ Individualism is a difficult term to define, but generally we take it to mean an atomistic, unlimited (besides by another’s individuality) freedom for a person and their self. In other words, someone may do what they wish. All libertarian movements therefore must be individualistic.
Confucius by no means introduces such an individualism. Rather he introduces the responsibility of an individual to upholding themselves to a collective or society. Crucially, while he does not grant ultimate freedom to the individual, he centers the individual to a degree perhaps not seen before in Chinese thought prior. In emphasizing individuals that they should hold the Junzi as an ideal, and cultivate themselves to be such a morally virtuous person, Confucius grants a degree of self control over oneself. Granted, in the context of the rectification of names and the familial obligations, said person is under many societal obligations, but Confucius emphasized the individual’s role to society and their own power in shaping that role, which prior thought denied by classism. What use is there in becoming “lordly” if you were born a mere farmer and condemned to toiling in the fields and were inherently morally lesser?
Confucius’s individual emphasis thus contributes to a libertarian streak within his philosophy that would echo several centuries afterwards. In particular, passage 14.24 would become a famous saying in Song China:
The Master said, “In ancient times scholars learned for their own sake; these days they learn for the sake of others.”
This passage would eventually be simplified as “learning for one’s self” (為己之學, wei ji zhi xue). This saying would be especially emphasized by the third most influential thinker in Chinese history — Zhu Xi, a pioneer of Neo-Confucianism.²¹ Later Neo-Confucians would be especially inspired by this phrase and be a perpetual thorn to the emperor, proposing anti-bureaucratic and anti-legal policy, and flaunting power relations in their pursuit of moral virtue.
Other ideas of note within The Analects include the silver rule in passage 15.24 (in contrast to the golden rule which says do unto others what you would have done unto you, the silver rule states do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you), which connects with Proudhon’s endorsement of those principles. There’s also an anti-militarist view expressed in 7.13 that will soon be discussed below.
Above all else, against the background of Aristocracy and Militarism, Confucius’s idealism, social thinking, and emphasis on learning seeded the first beginnings of a libertarian consciousness in China, and one that would take hold across East Asia to some degree. To further contextualize the influence of these libertarian elements, we must briefly and quickly take a detour into the future.
The Current of Libertarian Confucianism
「 自反而縮，雖千萬人，吾往矣。」
“If I find myself to be in the right, even if there are ten thousand others, I will go against them.”
— Mengzi, 2A.2, my translation
Libertarian elements from Confucius’s thought did not ever become lost. They were to a degree built into the philosophy, and as a result they had genuine historical effects.
Perhaps the most important Confucian thinker after Confucius was Mencius. Mencius was arguing against a background of other competing philosophies, many of which were to an extent responding to Confucianism. In response to them, Mencius took Confucius’s philosophy and imbued it with a great vigor that would ensure it would not lose out. The quote by Mencius above is indicative of the individual in their moral conviction above even social conformity, quite a departure from the stereotype of Confucius and Confucians being harmonious collectivists to a tee.
Beyond this, interestingly, Mencius actually contributes two sprouts of libertarian ideas. The first is the concept of “empathy.” Obviously empathy existed before Mencius, but his theory emphasized it for perhaps the first time, and it would actually wind up inspiring the Japanese anti-imperialist and anarchist Kotoku Shusui (幸徳 秋水) in his theory of nationalistic imperialism, Imperialism: Monster of the Twentieth Century, which invokes Mencius. Actually, Kotoku Shusui was quite aware and influenced by Confucianism, and it seems the Confucian influence in part led him to anarchist ideals.
The second concept is a theory of rebellion. Mencius actually makes it justifiable for a populace to rebel against the King should their material conditions deteriorate too much. This concept would later combine with the old Zhou concept of the Mandate of Heaven (天命, tianming), and would be deliberately used to check the emperor’s power by the famous Confucian Dong Zhongshu. Mencius doesn’t even appeal to law or natural right, merely morality, which puts it to some degree above the theories of Natural Rights Theorists in being closer to libertarianism. The Mandate of Heaven-rebellion theory would animate enormous resistance against the imperial regime time and time again after its creation, though it would always imply that a new political regime was to be set up in the old one’s place.
After Mencius, the Confucian movement would spend many decades unsponsored by any regime. When the Qin state became the victor in the Warring States Period, Legalism prevailed. But after its fall, and due to the good writing skills of the aforementioned Dong Zhongshu, the Han dynasty would make Confucianism state orthodoxy, and begin to educate all of its bureaucrats in Confucianism. Despite this, eventually there emerged two loose factions in the imperial government — Reformists, who advocated for a return to the Confucian ideals of light governance by ritual, and the Modernists who advocated for stronger and greater expansion of law and punishment inspired by their ties with Legalism. This would culminate with a Reformist victory, and in the latter half of the Han, a Laissez-Faire approach to governance was taken.²² Anarchist this was not, but it was an improvement in terms of punishment. Older laws advocated for cutting off a foot or execution, or even just extermination of a person and their entire family. The Laissez-Faire approach advocated for less use of punishments, and reformed some consequences away from the older law codes, though capital punishment usually was substituted for hard labor that was not better than slavery.
The Libertarian elements and pacifism of Confucianism also manifested in an early anti-expansionist approach to foreign politics. While an anti-expansionist approach has always existed, Confucian ideals of governance were used as a justification for such anti-expansionist policies.²³ The prevalence of Doves in the Han dynasty is perhaps demonstrative of the degree to which there was a common Confucian influence of anti-expansionism. However this was not typically for anti-authoritarian reasons, but often stemmed from reasoning of other cultures being perpetually ‘barbarian.’
In the fall of the Han, for a time, Confucianism became disgraced. While never abandoned, it took a backseat to the ideas presented by Daoism and Buddhism. It was in the Song to Ming when Confucianism combined with Buddhism to produce Neo-Confucianism. Thinkers such as Zhu Xi picked up on those libertarian aspects greater than they did in the past. Zhu Xi in particular was very fond of Confucius’s concept of “learning for one’s self,” and followers of Zhu Xi came to advocate anti-legal policy. Neo-Confucianism would spread across the other polities nearby, bringing the libertarian attitude with it, as it did in Korea and Japan.²⁴
The most fascinating moment in the development of Neo-Confucianism was when those libertarian elements of Confucianism came to their maximum in the teachings of Wang Yangming and the Taizhou School in thinkers such as Wang Gen and Li Zhi. These are often called “left wing” Confucians, and they verged quite close to a form of libertarianism. These prioritized one’s self-knowledge, and of action not just armchair-bound thinking. For Li Zhi, an almost anarchistic Confucianism appears.
Li Zhi was perhaps the most radical Confucian in Chinese history. While remaining just shy of anarchism and still appealing to authority, Li Zhi actually reasons that it is an individual duty to learn and know their needs and desires, and to prioritize their individual benefit, coming to a proto-individualist position.²⁵ He was also a proto-gender egalitarian, seeing men and women equally capable in attaining virtue.
Lastly, libertinism was present in this branch of Neo-Confucianism that manifested in a sexual indulgence that included queer/male-male relations.²⁶ Sex, pornography, and sexual freedoms are a critical part to individual freedom. Totalitarian governments typically try to restrict sexual freedom due to the liberating power of sexual indulgence. Even to this day, sex, pornography, and sexual indulgence is a resistant practice in East Asia. Thus the libertinism of these Neo-Confucianists are yet another important development in Chinese libertarian ideas.
The individualistic aspect of these “left wing” Confucians was particularly strong. However, they did not seek a larger program of social change or revolution, and though perhaps this was the strongest anti-authoritarian expression for Confucians, they still had blind spots regarding many groups such as women. They would decline going into the Qing dynasty. Even still, this Confucian influence would eventually be felt in some of the modern Chinese anarchists such as Liu Shipei.²⁷
The Importance of Confucianism
Most modern-day New Confucians remain committed to either a traditionalist or nationalist view, such as that of the Mainland Chinese Mou Zongsan, or something closer to a Liberal Confucianism, which aims at progressivism and even feminism.
However, these approaches are also missing a view of Confucius that shows a leaning towards anti-authoritarianism. These views also forget some of the developments of these later thinkers and their contributions towards a Libertarian Confucianism. The point of Confucianism is to learn, and to have a happy life. Then if those require authority to be destroyed or minimized, then why can’t Confucianism move towards an anti-authoritarian position?
I don’t wish to argue so favorably for Confucius, or to create a Libertarian Confucianist movement. Rather I wished to highlight the importance of Confucianism to the development of anarchic and anti-authoritarian thought in Chinese history. Most anarchist accounts of Chinese history try to start with Daoism, but the story does not only feature the Daoists. It is more complex than that,²⁸ with Confucians, Daoists, Buddhists, and then finally anarchism itself all interacting with each other to produce a native Chinese Anarchism.
Confucianism, in short, occupies a crucial role in Chinese anti-authoritarianism, one similar to that of Liberalism to Anarchism. It was a proto-libertarian philosophy that never quite lived up to its ideals and was absolutely critical for the development of a more consistent and stronger anti-authoritarian movement.
Onwards: Mutual Aid and Egoism
For the next part in the series, we will be discussing two philosophies that developed after Confucianism: Mohism and Yangism. For Mohism, we will explore some ideas about Mutual Aid, and for Yangism, we will look at its connections to Stirnerite Egoism, in spite of the lack of writings.
Footnotes
[1]: From Jonathan Spence’s In Search of Modern China 3rd Edition, p. 282, “As Mao wrote at this same time, he admired the anarchist Kropotkin more than Marx”
[2]: Two surveys are Peter Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible, and Robert Graham’s Anarchism: A Documentary History. Both do venture outside of Europe, but in concentrating on the history of anarchist thought, they tend to remain in Europe or the U.S. This is by no means a dig at them, more a limitation of their languages, and focus. Certainly many important European thinkers contributed to Anarchism, but for non-European anarchists, it’s preferable to have a more local focus.
[3]: Robert Graham’s Joseph Déjacque, The First Libertarian states that Dejacque used the term first to mean anarchist. It can be found here
[4]: This and this are some examples
[5]: The Paris Group of Chinese Anarchists in particular were quite reluctant to equate them.
[6]: Roderick T. Long’s Rituals of Freedom is quite historically accurate. It perhaps has some historical misinterpretation, but is not egregious by any means.
[7]: Laozi probably didn’t exist. This will become important in discussions of Daoism as certain interpretations of Daoism hinge on the existence of a writer or thinker. But Laozi is very likely fictional.
[9]: For a discussion of the textual history around the Guanzi, see W. Allyn Rickett’s Guanzi, Volume I.
[10]: See J.Ø. Petersen, “What’s in a name? On the sources concerning Sun Wu” for a discussion on some of the famous Sunzi stories and how they are historically dubious.
[11]: War was viewed as an integral part of elite life, and we have poems from the Odes that glorify warfare. See M. E. Lewis’s Sanctioned Violence in Early China for a look at the brutal rites that the Shang and presumably Western Zhou had. For an example of an Ode, see 常武 (Chang Wu)
[12]: For a brief summary of Confucius’s life, see Bryan Van Norden’s Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy
[13]: Cho-yun Hsu’s Ancient China in Transition: An Analysis of Social Mobility, 722–222 B.C. is the comprehensive study of this transition.
[14]: See The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy in Han Times by Michael Nylan
[15]: See The Myth of the “Five Human Relations” of Confucius by Hsü Dau-Lin. This article concludes with “Under the influence of the Yin-Yang school during the Han and of the Neo-Confucianism under the Sung these two relations were increased to five and the principle of reciprocity was replaced by a strict one-way obedience. This engendered a highly authoritarian spirit which was entirely alien to Confucius himself. [my emphasis]”
[16]: This line of reasoning comes from Van Norden, see 12.
[17]: This is discussed more in depth in Paul Rakita Goldin’s The Culture of Sex in Ancient China.
[18]: ibid.
[19]: Bret Hinsch’s Women in Ancient China has examples and analysis of this.
[20]: From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Individualism in Classical Chinese Thought by Erica Brindley, https://iep.utm.edu/ind-chin/
[21]: From William Theodore de Bary’s Learning for One’s Self: Essays on the Individual in Neo-Confucian Thought
[22]: An in depth look at this can be found in Crisis and Conflict in Han China by Michael Loewe
[23]: An example is Wei Xiang. This line of reasoning can be found in the final chapter of Tang in Multipolar Asia, which traces the pacifist attitude towards foreign policy in the Han dynasty.
[24]: The Neo-Confucian influence in Korea can be read about in Ideas of Self and Self Cultivation in Korean Neo Confucianism by Michael Keith Ralston
[25]: See again de Bary’s Learning for One’s Self
[26]: Wu Cuncun’s Homoerotic Sensibilities in Late Imperial China discusses the libertinism of these Taizhou School Confucians.
[27]: See Peter Zarrow’s Anarchism and Chinese Political Culture.
[28]: In The Chin Wen/Ku Wen Controversy in Han Times, Nylan discusses how at the time, Chinese people did not view Confucianism, Daoism, or Legalism as separate, but merely different paths to the same truth. Ancient Chinese people believed in a moral objectivism — of a common and agreeable right and wrong.
