Ba Jin: Toward a Free Society (1921)

Ba Jin (Li Feigan)

Ba Jin (1904-2005) was a well known novelist active in the Chinese anarchist movement during the 1920s, when the anarchists were still one of the leading forces on the Chinese revolutionary left. His most famous work is the novel, The Family, about the younger generation in China seeking liberation from traditional mores and institutions, published in 1933. As with many other Chinese anarchists, he was influenced by Kropotkin. He also corresponded with Emma Goldman, whom he regarded as his “spiritual mother.” The Chinese anarchist movement declined under the Guomindang in the late 1920s, and was completely suppressed by the Communists after their seizure of power in 1949. Ba Jin and his wife were persecuted during the so-called “Cultural Revolution” during the 1960s. I included some of Ba Jin’s anarchist writings from the 1920s in Volume One of Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. In Volume Three, I included some reflections by Ba Jin from 1984 on the harmful effects of state power on literature. This article is from Ba Jin’s most active anarchist period during the 1920s. It originally appeared under Ba Jin’s real name, Li Feigan. The translation is by Paul Sharkey, and can be found on the Kate Sharpley Library website. I was reminded of Ba Jin’s struggles against Communist censorship and his treatment during the Cultural Revolution by the current demonstrations in Hong Kong against the attempts by the Communist dictatorship in China to further restrict people’s freedoms.

How are we to establish a truly free and egalitarian society?

These days these words “freedom and equality” are part of the vocabulary of each and every one of us. But make a few inquiries and ask: What is freedom? and you will be told “Freedom means freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of association and assembly, the freedom of secrecy of correspondence”.

Ask: What is equality? and you will be told: “All citizens are equal before the law, with no difference between the high-born and the yokel.” Now, such narrow definitions have nothing to do with true freedom, true equality. Don’t believe me? Then have a read of the following.

The blight upon the people’s freedom is the State. Ever since the State came into existence, we have stopped being free. No matter what we do or say, the State sticks its nose in. All we ask is to live in love with our brethren from other nations, but the State would have us patriots at any price, enrols us in its armies and forces us to murder our neighbours. And here in China the situation is even worse: here we have Chinese murdering other Chinese. For a number of years now, in Hunan and Shaanxi and Szechuan, “the tide of blood has been running high and the corpses are piling up”.

What horror! So much for the benefits that the State has brought us. Arrogating to themselves the resources that are the common wealth of our planet, the capitalists grind us into a poverty that denies us the right to live. Not that the State punishes them for it: worse still, it protects them through a battery of laws.

The people has nothing to eat and has no option but to steal its food: it goes naked and has no option but to steal clothes: it has no option but to steal all that it needs. The people is driven to all this by the capitalists. And there goes the State, in its grandeur, dismissing us as brigands and decreeing that we are fit for nothing but the execution picket. We are gunned down merely for recouping – in contravention of the law, to be sure – a fraction of what we had lost, whereas the capitalists who loot the commonwealth of our planet are allowed to live in peace. If we are refused the right to steal, there is nothing left for us but to become beggars. Lo and behold, the capitalists, offended by the spectacle, bestow alms upon the poor and afford them a little of the money that they have stolen from them: and upon this they bestow the fine-sounding name of charity. Some of them even have the effrontery to insult us because we beg for our pittance instead of working for it.

Gentlemen! Can you be so sure that we do not want to work? It is more a case of our being denied work. Yet we are showered with insults. Looking at it from this angle, we can see that the “freedom and equality” of which we have just been speaking are alien to the people! Indeed, can one speak here of “freedom” and “equality”? I refuse to credit that there can be any freedom of that sort! Any equality of that stripe! But what then are real freedom and real equality?

Here comes my answer: Anarchy. That is the real freedom. And communism is the real equality. Only a social revolution can allow us to build a really free and really egalitarian society.

But what is Anarchy?

Anarchy is the placing of the State and its accessory institutions upon the Index and collective ownership of the means of production and goods produced. Every individual contributing in accordance with his ability and receiving in accordance with his needs. And work shared out according to the ability of the individual: whoever has the ability to be a doctor does the doctoring, and whoever has the ability to mine does the mining. More time devoted to straightforward tasks and less time squandered on complicated or tiresome ones. An agency to find you food when you are hungry, clothing to wear and a roof under which to shelter. Everybody in receipt of the same education, with no distinction drawn between the clever and the slow-witted.

Time and again, one French anarchist has reiterated: “Every individual need work only two hours a day if all the needs of society are to be met”. And Kropotkin too has stated: “If everyone works four hours a day, that will be enough – indeed, more than enough – to meet society’s needs.”

I imagine that such a proposition, cutting working hours to the bone, could not help but attract universal support. Without the State and its laws, we would have real freedom: without the capitalist class, we would have real equality.

Friends of the world of labour, can you see just how free a society rid of all authoritarian power would be? Can you see how egalitarian it would be? Are you willing to build such a society of freedom and equality? Well then, make the social revolution and have done with these rascally politics.

For the sake of the advent of a society of freedom and equality, let us hope that you and your friends will soon come together as one! As long as you endure it all with resignation, you will be fodder for the capitalists!

If you do not believe me, you will see for yourselves!

Ba Jin

Banyue (Fortnight), Chengdu, China, No 17, 1 April 1921

Anarchism in China

The Chinese Anarchist Movement-1

Continuing my installments from the “Anarchist Current,” the Afterword to Volume Three of Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, here I return to anarchism in China during the 1920s and 30s, focusing on Huang Lingshuang’s critique of Marxism. In Volume One of the Anarchism anthology, I included several selections from Chinese anarchists, including He Zhen, the early Chinese anarchist feminist, Shifu, “the soul of Chinese anarchism” who helped create a Chinese anarchist communist movement, and Ba Jin (also known as Li Pei Kan or Li Feigan), the famous Chinese novelist who was active in the Chinese anarchist movement from the 1920s until the Communist Party’s seizure of power in 1949. On my blog, I have posted additional material from Lui Shipei, He Zhen’s companion who helped introduce anarchism to China in the early 1900s, and Kan San, on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

china collage

Anarchism in China Before the 1949 Revolution

In Asia during the 1920s and 30s, the anarchists faced obstacles similar to those of their European comrades. The success of the Bolsheviks in Russia led to the creation of Marxist-Leninist Communist parties in various parts of Asia. The anarchists had until then been the most influential revolutionary movement in China. By the late 1920s, the anarchists had been eclipsed by the Chinese Communist Party and the Guomindang, who fought each other, and the Japanese, for control of China over the next twenty years.

Chinese anarchists rejected the Marxist notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, concentrating all power “in the hands of the state,” because this would result in the “suppression of individual freedom” (Volume One, Selection 100). The Chinese anarchists did not regard Marxist state socialism as sufficiently communist, for during the alleged “transition” from socialism to communism, a wage system and some forms of private property would be retained.

Huang Lingshuang (1898-1982), one of the more noteworthy Chinese anarchist critics of Marxism, rejected the Marxist view that society must progress through successive stages of economic and technological development before communism can be achieved. Drawing on the work of European anthropologists, Huang Lingshuang was able to more clearly distinguish between cultural change and biological evolution than Kropotkin, who had largely conflated the two. Huang Lingshuang argued that, contrary to the Marxist theory of historical materialism, the “same economic and technological conditions do not necessarily result in the same culture,” cultural and economic changes do “not occur at the same rate,” and not every society goes through the same economic stages of development in the same order (Volume One, Selection 100). Rudolf Rocker made similar arguments in Nationalism and Culture (Volume One, Selection 121).

Robert Graham

China down with emperors

Anarchism in Asia

asian anarchism


Kotoku Shusui

Kotoku Shusui

Anarchism in Asia





Ba Jin's translation of Kropotkin

Ba Jin’s translation of Kropotkin




Robert Graham

Meeting of East Asian Anarchist Federation

Meeting of East Asian Anarchist Federation 1927

Anarchists in Hong Kong Today

Protestors in Hong Kong 2014

Protestors in Hong Kong 2014

In Volume Three of Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, I included a 2001 interview with Mok Chiu Yu, an anarchist in Hong Kong, describing the changes in Hong Kong after China’s resumption of control of Hong Kong in 1997. He and other anarchists in Hong Kong were trying to create a libertarian counter-culture from which they hoped “autonomy and real democracy” would spring. There have been anarchists active in Hong Kong since the early 1900s. During the 1930s, the anarchist movement in China and Hong Kong went into eclipse, only to revive in the aftermath of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” of the late 1960s. In the 1970s, former Red Guards and students formed the “70s” group in Hong Kong, where they published ultra-left and anarchist critiques of the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship. As the uncredited story below indicates, in the fall of 2011, a new generation of anarchists became involved in the Occupy movement in Hong Kong and, most recently, in the pro-democracy student protests which shut down parts of Hong Kong over the past several months, until the police started dismantling their encampments.

The Face of Authority in Hong Kong

The Face of Authority in Hong Kong

Anarchists Protest in Hong Kong








"Hands Up Don't Shoot" in Hong Kong

“Hands Up Don’t Shoot” in Hong Kong






The crusade for democracy in Hong Kong, in its current form, is expected to end on Thursday [December 11, 2014]. The pro-democracy protesters have put up a final show of resistance, turning up in large numbers on Wednesday night, a week after they reclaimed a major road in Admiralty following an aggressive foray by police. Others have taken part in fasting, in twenty-eight-hour rotations, in reference to September 28th, when police used unprecedented amounts of tear gas on protesters.



china tear gasses Hong Kong protesters

Kan San: The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

















Ba Jin (1904-2005)



Kan San: The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution






2. A Real Revolution developed from a Sponsored Revolution




3. The Development of Ultra-left Ideas




4. The Lessons of the Cultural Revolution




5. Conclusion





Siegfried Nacht: The Social General Strike (1905)

Siegfried Nacht (1878-1956) was active in the international anarchist movement around the turn of the century. In 1905, under the name of Arnold Roller, he published his influential pamphlet, The Social General Strike. Max Baginski and a group of anarchists circulated it at the founding convention of the Industrial Workers of the World in Chicago in June 1905. Kôtoku Shûsui (1871-1911) obtained a copy when in contact with American anarchists in San Francisco and translated The Social General Strike into Japanese. Kôtoku then introduced Chinese anarchists to the pamphlet, and Zhang Ji (1882-1947) translated it into Chinese. In October 1905, there was a massive general strike in Russia which made a deep impression on workers and revolutionaries around the world, giving renewed credence to anarchist ideas, for it was the anarchists who had been advocating the general strike as a revolutionary weapon since the time of the First International (Volume One, Selection 27). The Marxist social democrats, taking their cue from a 1873 Engels’ pamphlet against Bakunin, “The Bakuninists at Work,” had been dismissing the general strike as “general nonsense” for years, as Nacht notes in his pamphlet. Kropotkin observed that “what exasperated the rulers most” about the general strike “was that the workers offered no opportunity for shooting at them and reestablishing ‘order’ by massacres. A new weapon, more terrible than street warfare, had thus been tested and proved to work admirably” (The Revolution in Russia, 1905: 280). Despite this practical vindication of anarchist ideas, Malatesta was careful to point out the limitations of the general strike during the debate on syndicalism at the 1907 International Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam. Instead of “limiting ourselves to looking forward to the general strike as a panacea for all ills,” Malatesta warned, anarchists needed to prepare for the insurrection or civil war that would inevitably follow. For it is not enough for the workers to halt production; to avoid being forced by their own hunger back to work, the workers need to provide for themselves by taking over the means of production (Volume One, Selection 60). Nacht was one of the anarcho-syndicalist delegates at the Congress who spoke in favour of the general strike. He later emigrated to the United States, where he became a Communist fellow-traveller after the 1917 Russian Revolution, and later worked for the US department of Inter-American affairs. His brother Max Nacht, better known as Max Nomad (1881-1973), had also been an anarchist, then a follower of the early theorist of the “new class,” Jan Machajski, and then, surprisingly, a pro-Soviet socialist and later an unreliable historian and hostile critic of anarchism. A complete copy of the Baginski translation is now available from Corvus editions at Below I have reproduced Part 1.




A new idea, a new weapon of the struggling proletariat, has pushed itself vehemently to the front and stands today on the bulletin of all discussions in the labour movement. This idea, which forces itself everywhere upon the international proletariat, is that of the “General Strike.” Until of late the general belief in the success of parliamentarianism has been unshaken among workingmen.

The events and the results of the political condition of recent years however, soon made it clear to the international proletariat that nothing could be gained in this way, and it was obliged to look around for a new fighting method. Even where parliamentarian socialism had developed most, and where with every additional election victory and quantitative increase—in Germany—its powerlessness was manifested, we hear, even in the reactionary camps of the social democratic party, voices calling for a new tactic.

The idea of the General Strike, which so far has largely been ridiculed and its propagators treated with slander and insult, has to be recognized now and is being discussed in all national and international labour congresses; and a member of the German social democratic party, Dr. Friedeberg, propagates this idea openly in the party.

The attitude of Social Democracy towards this idea, if it is not directly hostile, is in general however still very ambiguous; and all resolutions passed in its party congresses in regard to it, if they have not been directly hostile towards it, after long debates about the definition of the word, called only for a political “Mass-Strike” for the purpose of gaining certain single demands, but always refused to deal with the General Strike as a means and way to a social revolution.

The name “General Strike,” of course, admits of misunderstandings because it is applied to different general acts.

It is often used to designate the strike of all branches in one trade; for instance the General Strike of the miners, when helpers and hoisting engineers, etc., are all out. Then it is used as: General Strike of a city, i.e., “General Strike in Florence,” or a General Strike in a whole country or province for the purpose of gaining political rights, i.e., the right to vote, as in Belgium, or in Sweden.

The profoundest conception of the General Strike, however, the one pointing to a thorough change of the present system: a world social revolution; an entire new reorganization; a demolition of the entire old system of all governments—is the one existing among the proletarians of the Roman race (Spain and Italy). For them the General Strike is nothing less than an introduction to the social revolution. Therefore we call this General Strike, to distinguish it from General Strikes for higher wages, or for political privileges (political mass strikes), “The Social General Strike.” This conception of the General Strike will be dealt with in this treatise.

The General Strike idea has been opposed by the German workingman until now with the same idiotic phrases as the big-bellied bourgeois have used heretofore, by everlastingly re-chewing the tale of dividing all property, thus thinking to have made clear the nonsense of socialism, and at the same time proving only their own ignorance.

The “General Strike is general nonsense.” With this phrase the Social Democrats thought they could kill the General Strike idea.

When a discussion about the General Strike was permitted, the following ideas were always maintained: “The General Strike is a Utopia. It will never be possible to so thoroughly organize the proletariat that all workingmen will go on strike like one man; and if it were so well educated, and imbued with solidarity, and so well organized as to be able to declare a General Strike, then it would not need any General Strike; then it is the power in the country; then it may do anything it sees fit.”

Here we want to call attention to the fact that even with the best organization of the proletariat and the largest majority in the country and in Parliament, nothing can be done against the will of the Herrenhaus or Bundesrath , nothing against the will of the emperor, who has the whole army to support his will, while Parliament has nothing but paper scraps to defend itself against the bayonets of the soldiers.

The conduct and the result of the General Strike do not depend upon all workers laying down their tools. It would certainly be worthwhile to endeavour to educate all classes of workingmen so well that, on the day on which the General Strike began, the Proletariat of all countries would leave its factories and mines like one man, and through the expression of its united will throw off the chains of slavery. This ideal of propaganda will, however, in spite of its beauty always be a dream.

It was always the energetic and enthusiastic minority only that revolted against tyranny and oppression, thereby giving the initiative to the large, indolent masses who were dissatisfied and complained of their fate, but didn’t have the courage to revolt. It is quite a distance between a complaining dissatisfaction and open rebellion. In every revolution it was the force of the energetic minority that aroused the courage of the timid masses.

The same is observed in a strike. Although the labour unions as a rule represent only a minority of the workingmen, they always cause, organize, and lead the strikes of the unorganized masses. Often in this way a small minority goes on a strike, and during the strike the rest of the masses follow.

Often it happens that just through the strike the related industries and branches join in, spreading the strike over ever increasing territories and amongst ever growing masses of labourers.

The example of the strike is, in fact, suggestive and contagious to the masses.

It is therefore not of such great importance for the propagandists and followers of the general strike theory (as for instance the Spanish and French workers understand it) to get all the workers to lay down their tools at the same time, as it is to completely interrupt production in the whole country and stop communication and consumption for the ruling classes long enough to totally disorganize the capitalistic society, so that after the complete annihilation of the old system the working people can take possession through its labour unions of all the means of production, mines, houses, the land; in short: of all the economic factors.

Liu Shipei – On Equal Human Ability

Liu Shipei (Shen Shu) was a Chinese classical scholar who, with his wife, He Zhen, established the Society for the Study of Socialism in Tokyo in 1907. The Society published a journal called Natural Justice which promoted an agrarian kind of anarchism. He Zhen, an anarchist feminist, was the more radical of the two, familiar with European debates regarding socialism and women’s suffrage movements. She argued, much as Emma Goldman did, that the vote would not bring women genuine freedom. Excerpts from He Zhen’s essay, “Problems of Women’s Liberation,” originally published in Natural Justice in September and October 1907, are included in Chapter 20, “Chinese Anarchism,” in Volume One of Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. The following excerpts are taken from Liu Shipei’s contemporaneous essay, “On Equal Human Ability,” also published in Natural Justice. Unlike the Chinese anarchists who published the New Era journal in Paris, which adopted a modernist stance, and who sought to distance themselves from classical Chinese thought, Liu Shipei regarded the mythical Daoist sage, Lao Zi (or Lao Tzu, circa 400 BCE), as the father of Chinese anarchism, and drew inspiration from the third century BCE utopian, Xu Xing, in developing his ideas regarding an egalitarian, agrarian anarchist society. Liu was also influenced by Leo Tolstoy’s peasant focused pacifist anarchism, and was one of the first Chinese anarchists to emphasize the important role of the peasantry. Reading “On Equal Human Ability,” one can detect the influence of Charles Fourier as well (Volume One, Selection 7). As with Fourier’s similar plans for utopian colonies, Liu’s utopian vision is so detailed that it sets forth too narrow and restrictive a path to equality and freedom. The translation is by Guannan Li.

Humankind is named after its upright stance on the earth. Round head, square toes, different races; these are features common to all. The Buddhist Sutra tells us that the human body possesses four “Bigs”. Modern scientists know that the human body is composed of raw materials, and since we are all human beings, our bodies contain the same material. Materialists can demonstrate that every human body is the same. According to psychologists, every human being has a heart. Although the heart does not interact directly with the material world, when the body senses something, the heart, too, perceives it. So feelings originate from sensation, and intentions come after perception. Therefore, everyone identified as a human being is the same. This is why idealists can demonstrate that humankind shares the same feeling. The Buddha says that the dharma has no location. Living beings are not alien to the dharma, and the dharma is not alien to living beings. The Buddha also says that all living things are alike in their regulation. The philosopher Mencius also points out: “Things belonging to the same species are all similar. Humankind is no exception. The saint and I belong to the same species.” Wang Shouren has the same idea. The modern western scholar Rousseau originated the theory of human rights to argue for the same idea. Thus, equality of humankind was widely advocated by previous philosophers.

Since the creation of the world, all kinds of differences have come into being because of intellectual and physical distinctions. The powerful coerce the weak; majorities humiliate minorities; the wise cheat the stupid; and the brave terrify the timid, so the noble always rule the humble; the wealthy control the poor, and native people overpower foreigners. There is distinction between the dominant and the dominated; there is difference between a noble person and an average person. Generally speaking, people belonging to the former category are idle; people belonging to the latter category labour hard. The idle are happy; the labourers in pain. Doubtless, it is class politics that determines this. When we reflect on our society, there are control systems, distribution systems, and supply and demand systems. In society, in terms of occupations, there are scholars, peasants, artisans, and merchants; in terms of class, there are kings, ministers, soldiers, and masses. This is not just the case in despotic countries or under the patriarchal clan system. Don’t so-called republican polities and military societies also follow this unequal system?

Alas! From past to present, humankind has never experienced the joy of equality. The reason people are unequal is because they are not independent. It is because of dependence that the enslavement of people is possible. Because of dependence, they lose their right to freedom. As they lose freedom, they also lose the right to equality. Humankind has been imprisoned for a long time, which is contrary to the principle of equality. People who enslave others must depend on the willingness of the ruled. If they are reluctant to be ruled, you will lose what you depend on. Then you lose your subsistence. People enslaved by others must depend on their willingness to rule. If they don’t need your service any more, you will definitely lose your job. Then you cannot afford your subsistence. Therefore, dependent people are the most dangerous ones among human beings.

Aiming to sweep away power and wipe out the government, so-called communists regard land and capital as collectively-owned property. In communist society, everybody can work. Although all are equal in having access to jobs, even the same job can vary in hardship. There must be someone who measures workers’ abilities and assigns the corresponding job. This is another kind of government, and another kind of intervention. If there are superintendents, smart people will make use of the pretext to decline heavy jobs, and cunning people will make use of the pretext to avoid hard work. Furthermore, if it is because of inequality of hardship that envy occurs, how can conflicts be stopped immediately? If you let people choose their job according to their temperament, won’t every person approach happiness and avoid hardship, or choose easiness and restrain oneself from difficulties? If everybody behaves like this, who is to assume hard and difficult jobs? Furthermore, how do people’s demands and lust get satisfied since materials are always short? Even though someone would reluctantly accept the hard job, it is always against his/her will. In this sense, this would not work for very long. Even though it may work for a while, people who share the morality of the same species would end up with this inequality of hardship. So the result would be that the right is equal, but not the commitment. Therefore, equal commitment is determined by everybody’s independence. What’s independence then? Independence means that no one relies on others, or is enslaved by them.

This is the so-called “equal men” discourse. Equal men are equipped with multifold skills concurrently. To realize the promise of this discourse, we must destroy existing society and eliminate national boundaries. The area where the population reaches over one thousand should be cantoned as a county. Every county then sets up a rest home for senior citizens and children. After children are born, no matter male or female, every baby is sent to the rest home. Those who are over fifty also go to the rest home. Their responsibility is to feed the children. Children who reach six should be educated by the seniors. Education will last for five years. From ten to twelve, children will receive practical training. During these ten years, children will study the sciences half the day, and for the other half learn to manufacture appliances which are the necessities of life. Both will be taught by the senior people. The necessities of life will meet people’s basic needs, namely clothing, food, and housing. The maximum of education time for one person is ten years. People over 20 will go to work for society. People are supposed to change their jobs at different ages. After reaching fifty, people will enter the rest home again. These are the basic ideas of the equal man discourse…

Maximum of farming time for one person is 16 years. Machines must be used in farming to save labour. Within these 16 years, the amount of rice produced by one person could feed approximately 4 to 5 persons.

Depending on the area, people could choose two or three jobs to do, including planting cotton, vegetables, and trees, and other minor works, such as feeding livestock, fishing, and hunting which are conducted during the time off from farming.

In the farming season, people should stop working on other jobs (like road construction) and just focus on farming. When farming is done, people just need to work for another two hours on other jobs. The remaining time is just for rest.

People must use machines in production. Every county should prepare all the machines. Every worker no matter which job he is doing should cooperate with each other efficiently.

Everybody should produce ironware and pottery, the necessities of people’s livelihood. Besides these, one can choose another one or two things to produce according to one’s temperament.

If goods are transported in the vicinity, the maximum working time is two hours per day. Only after five years can people get exemption from that. If transportation is to a distant place that cannot be reached within one day, or a whole day is spent traveling (with no time to rest), the service period should decrease. The maximum could be one or two years.

In the spare time after work, one should engage in study according to one’s temperament. After reaching 46, one devoting oneself to medicine should take charge of curing people. One devoting oneself to engineering should take a position as a mechanic or road construction engineer. One who has not received so much education could be an electric bus assistant or a barber. The maximum working time per day is two hours. If one always travels to a distant place, and there is little rest for the whole day, the maximum service time could be reduced from 5 to 2 years.

Cripples over 20 are exempted from all the work above. The blind will take charge of music. The dumb and the deaf will take charge of typesetting and publishing books. The lame take charge of editing and collating. The maximum of their working time is also two hours per day. They have the same rights as others.

Generally speaking, people do more difficult jobs at their younger ages, then easier ones during their old age.

All manufactured appliances are placed in the public market and are collectively owned by all people. Houses are built in the same dimensions. Everyone owns one. There should be certain places for reading and dining. These are the places where people gather together.

If we carry out this plan, hardship would be equal. And there is no need to worry about the lack of any material. Within society, everyone is equal; outside society, everyone is independent. Everyone is simultaneously a worker, peasant, and scholar. Everyone has the same right and bears equal commitment. Isn’t this the world where the great public way is manifested? Besides this, the plan has other advantages.

First, it accords with human nature. Humankind has one common nature: fondness of the new and boredom of the old. From morning to night just focusing on one job, people will definitely get tired of it. However, if they could switch to another job occasionally, they will not. Reading just one book, they will get tired of it. However, if they switch to another book, they will not. Why? People always get tired of the old and are fond of the new. It is for this reason that people always keep in motion. Now one person has multifold skills concurrently. His job correspondingly changes with age. This accords with human nature. This is the first advantage.

Secondly, it accords with humanity. Beneath heaven everybody is equal. People have the same ears and eyes, and thus share the same feelings. As Mencius remarks, “I have everything within myself”. Nowadays the necessities of life are produced by others. Others know but I don’t; others practice but I don’t. The sage once noted, “It is a shame of a scholar if he doesn’t know one thing.” In light of this saying, how can I stand this endless shame? Only by carrying out this plan, can I be equipped with multifold skills. Then I will be able to handle things as others do. Isn’t this the humanistic way? This is the second advantage.

Thirdly, this accords with evolutionary principles. The skills barbarians possess are very simple. With evolution, they gradually gain more complicated skills. Because of their simple skills, their enterprises are also simple. Only after they gradually gain more complicated skills, do their enterprises get complicated. It’s like ancient merchants who do not need to study classics; or ancient scholars who do not need to study martial arts. Modern merchants in the civilized countries certainly know sciences; scholars certainly provide military service to the government; peasants also need to receive education. Isn’t it proof of the evolutionary process from simple to complicated? This plan which makes people switch their jobs from the simple to the complicated accords with the evolutionary principle. Ancient knowledge is categorized into different disciplines. In contrast, modern people before their adulthood all study the common sciences. Since everybody is able to master the common sciences, everyone is also able to assume the common job. Since everybody is able to assume the common job, everyone can gradually be equipped with more knowledge and gain more abilities. This is the third advantage.

Fourthly, this plan can eliminate conflict in the world. The emergence of conflict is due to selfishness and envy. Pursuit of one’s own interests directly leads to their proliferation. This certainly induces others’ envy. Envy originates from unevenness; unevenness results from different jobs. This leads to world-wide conflict. In sum, the misfortune of conflict results from inequalities of hardship. When poor people envy your happiness, they have to seek their interests. When they hate your happiness, envy arises. The disaster of bloody revolution originates therein. If hardship is equal for everybody, there will be no difference, and nobody will mind it. The sense of inequality will not rise and conflict will not occur. Humankind can maintain peace forever. This is the fourth advantage.

I believe that these four advantages of “equal man” discourse are sufficient to govern all under heaven. However, skeptics may still raise three questions about this plan. First, that nobody is able to manage all the jobs. Second, that it will increase hardship. Third, that it will hinder study.

Let me dispute them one by one. Like the French Emperor Napoleon, who wanted to eliminate the word “inability” from the dictionary, there are several Chinese philosophers who criticized those who had abilities but did not work. Zai Shi in the Zhouli (Rituals of Zhou Dynasty) once said, “If you did not raise livestock, there would be no livestock for sacrifice. If you did not cultivate, there would be no rice for sacrifice. If you did not plant trees, there would be no wood for the coffin. If you did not raise silkworms, there would be no silk. If you did not weave, there would be no mourning garments of hemp.” Isn’t this proof that one should equip oneself with multifold skills? In this sense, “inability” is always the excuse. This excuse justifies the production of clothing, food and housing by others. You just sit there and enjoy the products. This directly results in your dependence on others. Moreover, if others do what you think you are “unable” to do, it is no longer a question of inability. If you think practical jobs could only get done by humble people, when you do it, is this because of your responsibility? Or is this because you are forced by the situation? From all the reasons above, it does make sense that nobody be able to manage all the jobs. However, the fact is that hierarchy has already been included in this argument. This is the argument only for a class society. It is not proper today.

Secondly, some may argue that the “equal man” plan will increase hardship. This argument is actually not true. Nowadays workers work everyday from 8 AM to 10 PM. They are very busy the whole year and have little rest. However, according to the “equal man” plan, the total farming period will be just 16 years, the farming season per year will be no more than several months, and the maximum work per day will be two hours. From this comparison, isn’t it clear which is harder and which is easier? Furthermore, the feeling of hardship always depends on that of happiness. One can feel so-called bitterness only in isolation. If bitterness is felt collectively, the boundary between bitterness and happiness is already obscure. How could you say you still feel pain? Moreover, since fondness of exercise and work is human nature, plenitude of work accords with it. How could you say you get more hardship since work is your human nature? Thus, this argument for more hardship is also wrong.

Thirdly, in terms of hindering study, scholars in ancient times not only studied but also cultivated. They mastered one classic each three years. Yi Yun also cultivated by himself; Fu Yue also constructed buildings. Both of them finally became assistant to the king. Isn’t this proof that physical work is not a hindrance for learning? Moreover, in our ideal society, common study comes before adulthood. After that, there are no more than several months of farming per year, and no more than two hours of work per day. Besides these, all the time left is reserved for study. Thus the argument for hindrance of learning is also wrong. Moreover, once this plan is carried out, the tendency of mutual dependence will be eliminated and the happiness of freedom and equality will be achieved. All the systems of inequality and injustice of former days will be abolished. There will be no more talk of unevenness and inequality. If the sage were reborn, he would not argue with me.

Look at the Warring States period. Xu Xing advocated that scholars should also farm. He said, “The sage will farm and eat side by side with the common people. If people eat well, the state is peaceful. However, King of Teng set up granaries and government to exploit people in accordance with his own interests.” His idea is incisive. Farming side by side with peasants means that everyone should work. He scolds King of Teng for exploiting the people for his own good. His idea is against class. However, Mencius attacks this point, arguing that Xu’s theory is wrong because if everybody engages in farming, other necessities of life will not be met. Chen Xiang, a former disciple, told Mencius that “artisans could not work and at the same time cultivate.” Farmers and workers could trade with each other. From this perspective, isn’t it true that China already has two classes of workers and peasants? Isn’t it difficult to have equal jobs? Mencius replies to Chen, “One needs all the necessities produced by hundreds of artisans to maintain oneself. If he insists that he only use the stuff produced by himself, he is leading people to ruin the Tao.” Xu Xing exchanges millet for necessities, but he never argues for the self-sufficient idea. Although the self-sufficient idea is very similar to the equal man theory, they are different. If Mencius were to be reborn, how could he use this pretext? If he argues that there is a difference between using the body (laoli) and using the mind (laoxin), between rulers and ruled, this would be totally contradictory to the equality of humankind. His theory is even worse than Xu Xing’s. Although Xu’s is not perfect, he was the first person in China to advocate that scholars should farm side by side with peasants. This is a capital idea…

Nowadays people who advocate that men are superior to women all think women’s obligation is inferior to men’s. If we carry out this plan, there would be no difference between men and women’s obligation. Men will not depend on women’s housework; women will not depend on men’s money for clothing and food. The dependency tendency will be totally eliminated. Moreover, since newborn children will be sent to nurseries, women will have no obligation to raise them. Thus their obligation will be the same as men’s. When their obligation is equal, the theory of men’s superiority over women will no longer be possible. Here the theory of equality of men and women and equal man theory are two sides of the same coin. It is also wrong to say that women cannot assume hardship. In several provinces, such as Hunan and Guangxi, all the hard corvee labour which men are unable to assume actually is taken on by women. The theory that women cannot assume a hard job is wrong. I hope that women will not use inability as an excuse. Equality will be good both for our society and for women.

Natural Justice, Volume 3, July 10, 1907