Is China's ancient economic system a market economy?

Regarding the nature of China's traditional economic system, mainland scholars mainly focus on criticizing the exploitation and backwardness of the traditional "feudal society". After systematically studying the ancient land system, labor market, towns and markets, government-run and private businesses in China, they think that China has been a market economy since the Warring States period more than 2,000 years ago. They believe that although there is no machine production, no airplane as a means of transportation, no computer as an information equipment, no complete accounting system, and no banking and stock trading system, since the Warring States period, China has established private ownership of land, formed an employment system in which labor can flow, and commodity exchange has become increasingly developed. In agriculture, the main industry of society, the state basically pursues non-interventionism. As the main body of agricultural production, yeoman farmers, tenant farmers and business landlords are based on the principle of seeking maximum economic benefits under the existing constraints, which is no different from modern subjects in China. Of course, the establishment and maturity of land private ownership and labor employment system is not a day's work, but also repeated. After the Warring States period, private ownership of land has always been the main body, but there are also a large number of commons, especially from the Northern Wei Dynasty, the Northern Qi Dynasty to the mid-Tang Dynasty, the land equalization system based on state-owned land once replaced private ownership; From the perspective of labor force, it was not until the Song Dynasty that the free flow of employees reached a considerable level. From the perspective of industrial and commercial development, policies and ideologies that inhibit business have always existed. Medieval Europe practiced a rigid feudal system, and the land was divided into pieces and was not allowed to be freely transferred. The strict aristocratic system leads to insufficient personnel flow between all walks of life, and the closed manor economy dominates. Whether we agree with the two authors' judgment that China was a market economy in ancient times, we will agree that compared with Europe at that time, China people have more freedom in buying land and real estate, choosing jobs (including entering the imperial court and the upper class of society through the imperial examination), employing people and moving. China people's mode of production and lifestyle are more dynamic and flexible. It is with this "advanced" mode of production that China's economic and cultural level can be ahead of the world for a long time, creating a splendid ancient civilization. This analysis has also solved a contradiction: for a long time, on the one hand, we are proud of China's ancient civilization (such as the achievements of China's ancient scientific and technological development reflected in Needham's magnum opus History of Science and Technology in China), on the other hand, we only attribute the source of this civilization to the hard work and creation of working people, and blindly dismiss its economic and social system as a decadent feudal system that "serves the landlord class". This is obviously in contradiction with Marx's historical materialism. From this point of view, the cover of the mainland edition of History of China's Economic System adopts a part of the Riverside Scene at Qingming Festival, which reflects the prosperity of China's ancient golden age and is quite meaningful. However, it must be admitted that although the components of China's market economy developed early, the overall level of economic and social development, especially in terms of per capita level, made slow progress for a long period of time, and often fell into periodic social unrest or even collapse, resulting in a significant decline in the population, which is rare in all countries in the world. Especially in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Western Europe entered the great development of capitalism, and China was obviously backward. For a long time, the progress of agricultural production technology was very limited; Although industry and commerce have developed rapidly in some periods, regions and fields, they are far from the capitalist industrial revolution. The living standard of ordinary people is also quite low. And Chen gave an interesting explanation that China's handicraft industry did not develop as a whole, nor did it cross the threshold of capitalism. /kloc-After the 20th century, due to the large increase of population in China, the ratio of people to land deteriorated, a large number of surplus laborers appeared in rural areas, and the labor force marginal return declined. In the rural handicraft industry as a sideline of agricultural families, the marginal return of labor force can be reduced to below the minimum living cost (because it is only a sideline), and it is large-scale and professional. How to break this deadlock? The author's answer is that we must wait for China to get in touch with industrialized countries, and only by introducing more efficient large-scale machinery production can we compete with rural sideline production and develop real industry. This theory is unconvincing. First of all, it attributed the failure of the industrial revolution to the ratio of population to land, but failed to deeply explore the relationship between the plight of people and land and economic, social, political systems and cultural traditions. The second is to externalize or even externalize the answer to this question, which is divorced from the logic of a country's own development; Thirdly, the author does not explain whether this theory is applicable to other ancient civilizations that have not embarked on the road of industrialization. Therefore, although the theory is concise, it is suspected of oversimplifying complex problems. Gu Zhun once said that capitalism is not only an economic phenomenon, but also a legal system. Douglas North and others have demonstrated that the industrial revolution is the result of the reform of property rights system and legal system, and it is the result of capitalism rather than the cause. Therefore, the handicraft workshops in China have not developed, and there should be more profound institutional reasons. In fact, China's commerce has been developed since ancient times, especially in the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces were quite prosperous, but it did not fundamentally change the basic structure of China society. Businessmen never have much say in politics. In the modern market economy system, corresponding to private property ownership and market economy are inclusive democratic politics, open and inclusive ideology, mature civil society and independent judicial system. In ancient China, there was a centralization of authority with strong control, including autocratic imperial power, bureaucratic system serving imperial power, and ideology based on Confucianism (so-called grand unification). The rigid feudal system in western Europe, coupled with the restriction of the separation of church and state on the autocratic power of the king and the developed maritime trade, provided gaps and opportunities for the germination and growth of independent cities. Although China has a relatively free and flexible land and labor system, it has not produced an independent city as opposed to feudalism as in Western Europe, nor has it fostered the alienation of the old system. The merchant class has been suppressed and deprived of power. Instead of becoming a force of resistance and alienation, it always tries to hold on to power. Wang Yi's article "China's power economic form and its main path around16th century-a typical example of the urban economic form under the imperial power system in China" published in China Cultural Studies (No.4, 2004) summarizes and summarizes the path of the powerful to suppress and exploit businessmen and businessmen's dependence on power under the authoritarian system: the rulers rely on power, buy and sell strongly; Electric power groups directly operate enterprises and seize monopoly profits; Deprive the law through exorbitant taxes; Directly use violence and openly plunder the property of the industrial and commercial class and the people; Without the protection of personal and property rights system, businessmen are "sheltered under the bureaucratic system" and engaged in power and money transactions. In such a political and economic ecology, it is difficult to effectively protect property rights and management rights, and a healthy market economy and urban economy cannot develop and grow. /kloc-there are many things worth pondering in comparing the development paths between China and the west after the 0/2 century. Here are two points: First, as mentioned above, the complexity of the relationship between political system and economic activities is beyond the existing theoretical cognition (including historical materialism), which is worth further discussion. For example, seemingly private property and freedom of transaction are not modern market economy, nor can they automatically bring inclusive democratic politics, mature civil society and independent judicial system; Second, the influence of history and tradition on the contemporary era should not be underestimated. For example, can you still see the shadow of the ancient power economy, or even a replica? American scholar Nathan Rosenberg &; In his book Economic Changes in Modern Western Society (CITIC Publishing House, 2009, translated by Ceng Gang), George W. Badir believes that western capitalism is a product of the Middle Ages to some extent. Some medieval systems still exist in the west, such as monarchy, aristocracy, lower house of parliament, English common law, courts that interpret legal norms, church hierarchy, parish system, universities, public schools and grammar schools. In fact, the manor in the middle ages was an "independent kingdom" with political and economic integration, in which customs and customary laws, rather than the king's orders, played an important role in social management; At the same time, the existence of independent churches maintains the diversity of western European society. Douglas North said, "History is always important. Its importance lies not only in that we can learn from the past, but also in that the present and the future are linked with the past through the continuity of a social system. The choice of today and tomorrow is determined by the past. " In today's China, the establishment of a sound market economy system is obviously inseparable from the rule of law and democracy, and from an independent and fair judicial system, which is exactly what our tradition lacks, and is not automatically brought about by businessmen seeking profits.