What was the concept of the original feudal society?

In China, the concept of "feudalism" can refer to three different objects: the first refers to the feudalism in ancient China, such as "feudal relatives of the Western Zhou Dynasty"; The second refers to China's "feudal society" which extended from ancient times to modern times, thus giving rise to the question of when China entered the feudal society and why the feudal society in China existed for a long time. The third refers to a social system in medieval Europe, which is often regarded as the reference prototype of various feudal societies. We have studied the first concept of "feudalism" in the last chapter. Below we will discuss and compare the concept of "feudal society" between China and the West.

First, the origin of China's concept of "feudal society"

Since China was knocked out of the country in the middle of19th century, the ideological dispute about ancient feudalism in China has become a dead end. Those who are dissatisfied with the status quo and determined to reform no longer focus on the ancient times, but follow the example of the West, believe in "progress" and focus on the future. However, the word "feudalism" did not disappear, but gradually gained a new meaning and became popular in society.

The concept of "feudal era"

The concept of "feudal era" was put forward by comparing Chinese and western history. 1899, Liang Qichao published an article entitled "On the Similarities and Differences between China and European Countries" in Volume 17 (June 8) and Volume 26 (September 5) of Qingyi Daily. Liang Qichao thinks that the similarity between China and European countries lies in that they have experienced three times in turn: the family era, the chieftain era and the feudal era. Among them, the state system of China Zhou Dynasty is the most similar to the European Greek state system, that is, both are feudal times, and they are divorced from aristocratic politics and nationalities. At this time, the power of the government (that is, the nobility) is very heavy, too monarchical, just like the so-called "minority and regime" or "oligarchic regime" in Europe, especially Sparta, which is close to ancient Greece. As a part of this society, aristocrats are also very close to civilians, so we can also regard this aristocratic political era as a slightly extended civil rights era.

The differences between China and European countries are mainly manifested in two aspects: The first significant difference is that after the collapse of the unified Roman Empire, Europe is still divided by other countries, while China has been unified since the Han Dynasty. The national systems of China and Europe were roughly the same before the Spring and Autumn Period, but completely different after the Spring and Autumn Period. After the Qin dynasty abolished the seal and built the county, it was not easy to follow it for two thousand years. Although there was a rebellion of seven countries in the Western Han Dynasty, there was a rebellion of eight kings in the Jin Dynasty, and there was a change of Yan Wang and Zhu in the Ming Dynasty, all of them were short-lived and did not form a national form. As for Zhou Mu at the end of the Han Dynasty and Fan Li in the Tang Dynasty, they both had a period of turmoil. Therefore, since the Qin and Han Dynasties, China has entered the "era of great unification". The reason is that Confucianism is defined as a statue; Second, because the racial boundaries in China are not strict, different races can marry, and there is no difference gradually. As for reunification and other countries, which is better, the former is beneficial to the people, and the latter can carry forward the popularity because of competition.

The second significant difference between China and European countries is that Europe has a national class style, while China does not. Different from other countries in the world, China has always kept a low profile, especially since the Han Dynasty. I often see each other wearing cloth. Although there is a disadvantage of "there is no poverty in the top grade and no nobility in the bottom grade" in the Wei and Jin Dynasties, this is not the original intention of creating this system. As for the later Tang Dynasty, the lower class civilians could "rise from the ground". Although there are still regulations prohibiting officials, these people are too few to be regarded as a class. The reason for this difference is that during the Warring States period, countries had to recruit talents, pay tribute to Chu Shi and attract guests, thus breaking the barriers of guests. But Confucius, Mozi and other sages all advocated equality. Confucius laughed at guests and monks, and most of his disciples came from humble origins, thus sweeping away the bad habits of the natural class. However, the fact that China has no class has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage lies in the equality and happiness of the people, and the disadvantage lies in the fact that without competition, the wisdom of the people cannot flourish day by day. Moreover, because the potential dissatisfied people in the "ruled people" have the channels to rise to the "people who rule the people" and get rich, the people's feelings are not concentrated but the people's hearts are not excited.

Liang Qichao believes that although unity and division, class and classless have their own advantages and disadvantages, if we follow the axioms of civilization, we should give priority to "national unity" and "classless". So the evolution of China was actually far ahead of Europeans 2,000 years ago. But why are China and European civilizations so different now? This is because before the Spring and Autumn Period, there was not much difference between China and the West, but after the Spring and Autumn Period, China suddenly became the same as Europeans, and later, Europeans suddenly became the same as China. For example, in ancient Greece, there was an elected representative system in the west, which China had never heard of, and the people did not expand their power. This is because they are closed to the outside world and have no class. So at first glance, it is precisely theoretical civilization that hinders factual (material) civilization. But in essence, the key is whether we can make good use of this theory. Liang Qichao finally said:

"From then on, incredible changes will take place in society. After thousands of years of classlessness, Russia has become a class. After two thousand years of stagnation, we can't make progress. Should we regress today, or will China take off? " I

This can almost be said to be a fairly accurate prediction of this century released at the end of last century. China soon entered an era of extensive mobilization, fierce class struggle and thorough social revolution. After experiencing all kinds of "incredible" "social changes", until today, when we can already see the threshold of 2 1 century, we may say that China seems to have withdrawn from this transitional era and entered an era of relative peace, economic development and natural diversion.

In Liang Qichao's view, the feudal era and his era are not connected, separated by more than two thousand years. These two thousand years can be called "the era of great unification" or "the era of classlessness". Yan Fu's point of view is slightly different. 1904, Yan Fu published a book translated by British scholar Jencks (E. Jenks, 186 1- 1939). The book was originally named Political History (literally translated as Political History), and Yan Fu changed its name to Political History. In the preface written for the translation of this book, Yan Fu lamented the historical differences between China society and western society. He accepted Janksey's view that the social evolution in Europe today is from totem society or barbarian society to patriarchal society and then to military society or national society, and there is a feudal era between patriarchal society and military society. According to the history of China, Yan Fu believed that China was "feudal" for more than 2,000 years from Tang Yu to Zhou Dynasty, and the patriarchal clan system was best prepared at this time. Although Qin's "county and county government" occupied civil rights and belonged to "dominating the DPRK", it still had to change from patriarchal clan system to military society. However, more than 2000 years have passed since the Qin Dynasty. Today, China's politics, customs, ideology and culture are still not divorced from the patriarchal clan system. In this way, Yan Fu actually thinks that China has been in a patriarchal society for more than 4,000 years, and the patriarchal society can be divided into two eras: the feudal era before the Zhou Dynasty and the era after the Qin Dynasty. At that time, it was transformed into a military society, but it still did not break away from the patriarchal society. China has been a pure and complete unit for more than 4,000 years, and China's view of long-term social stagnation can be seen here.

Generally speaking, the concept of "feudal era" comes directly from the comparison between China and the West, mainly from the perspective of the West; It is basically a historical concept of an era and has not left the historical category; It is also basically observed from the perspective of politics (state system) and does not involve economic form; Although observation and comparison mean that China is not advancing or advancing slowly relative to the West, it does not provide theoretical guidance for direct action; Finally, the meaning of "feudalism" used here is basically consistent with the ancient meaning, with no significant turning point. Therefore, the Western Zhou Dynasty is undoubtedly a feudal era, but the upper and lower limits are slightly different.

The concept of "feudal society"

Because we are not going to discuss the accidental and individual use of the concept of "feudal society", iii is going to discuss a systematic explanation of China's social history on the basis of carefully explaining the concept of "feudal society", so we find that in this sense, the concept of "feudal society" was first put forward in 1929, and it was in this year that it should be said that it was intriguing.

During the period of 1927, the Kuomintang "cleaned up the Party", the country was torn apart, mass movements such as the agricultural movement and the labor movement were suppressed, the revolution turned into a low tide, and a large number of enthusiastic people had to return to school. 1929 published "The Elimination of Feudal System in China" in No.3-5, Volume 2 of New Life 1929, and Japanese fugitive Guo Moruo published "The Social Changes in the Age of Poetry, Calligraphy and Painting and Their Ideological Reflection" in No.8-12, Volume 26 of Oriental Magazine (/. At that time, Tao Xisheng also published "Analysis of China's Social History" in New Life Bookstore, which opened a scene to discuss the social history of China. The 4th letter of the Greek alphabet.

Tao Xisheng said in the book: "The revolution in China has become an unsolved mystery today. Is the revolution based on the whole people or farmers, workers and ordinary citizens? Is the object of the revolution imperialist and feudal forces, or several powers and warlords? " v

Therefore, he hopes to study the status and nature of China society first. The two central issues here are: 1. Is China a feudal society or a capitalist society at present? 2. Has the invasion of imperialist forces worsened China society, and to what extent?

Tracing back to the context of China society, Tao Xisheng thinks that the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period is a key to the social history of China. At this time, China society ended the feudal system, and the destroyed feudal system was still rebuilt on another basis. Therefore, it is inaccurate to call it feudal system again, and it is not allowed to deny feudal forces. In short, after the Qin and Han Dynasties, China was still in the "pre-capitalist period", or a deteriorated feudal society. In the history of thousands of years, we have seen many phenomena similar to capitalist society and strict feudal system. Family-oriented and individualistic laws, authoritarianism and individualism are intertwined.

According to Tao Xisheng, the standard "feudal system" has two characteristics: 1. The feudal system is based on the land system, and its foundation is in the countryside; 2. Under the feudal system, the land lords and feudal nobles held power. Because of these two characteristics, during the feudal system, there was no centralized and developed currency in cities, and there were no bureaucrats but nobles. However, during the Warring States period, China already had considerable commerce, and both bureaucrats and civilians were able to be officials, so it can be said that the feudal system has collapsed. Bad mining fields make the land private, so there are non-noble landlords, and then there is "the identity of a scholar-bureaucrat landlord." These people are very conservative, and they don't want it to happen in cities, or take rural areas as the economic base, and then oppress businessmen, so China entered slowly.

To sum up, Tao Xisheng's four conclusions are: 1. The feudal system collapsed in the Spring and Autumn Period, and China was no longer a feudal country. Only the rule of foreign princes is still in the form of feudalism; 2. China government is a landlord and bureaucratic government, which does not reward business, and business is absolutely underdeveloped, especially prohibiting China people from engaging in foreign trade; 3. Therefore, after the collapse of the feudal system, China was a society with the relationship between literati and peasants as the main structure before the development of capitalism; 4. If we regard this scholar-bureaucrat status and the bureaucratic government with this status as feudal forces, we can and should put forward the slogan of overthrowing feudal forces, but not overthrowing the feudal system, because this system no longer exists. He also pointed out that "solving the land problem at this time can overthrow the remnants of the literati, but it can't lift the imperialist rule over China through the bureaucratic government." Visual recognition system

Thus, the concepts of "feudal system" and "feudal society" put forward by Tao Xisheng are more economical than political, that is, they are mainly defined economically. But at least from the author's understanding, the meaning of these concepts is not contradictory to the ancient meaning of "feudalism", and is basically the same as the western concept of "feudalism". Tao Xisheng thought that the feudal system in ancient China was similar to that in Europe. The similarity between China and the western feudal system is based on the land system, which established the relationship of personal subordination and protection as well as the status hierarchy. As for the difference, the central power of Western Zhou feudalism seems to be greater than that of European feudalism, and the people in QingDafu city seem to have heavier obligations to the princes than QingDafu. In other words, the separatist regime is not that serious.

Tao Xisheng called China society after the Warring States Period "pre-capitalist society" or "pre-capitalist society", which not only reflected his emphasis on economic factors, but also reflected that he was influenced by the "objective development law" of several social forms at the same time. According to this law, the society after the feudal society in China (after the Warring States) must be a capitalist society, but it is very different from the capitalist society, so Tao Xisheng has to call it this. Marxist scholars avoid these troubles and directly call China's long society from the Warring States to the Qing Dynasty "feudal society" (Guo Moruo, etc. ) or "feudal landlord society after feudal main society" (Fan Wenlan, etc. ), so as to link it with the "capitalist society".

Of course, Tao Xisheng's appellation can also be understood as a cautious attitude, or even as a "phenomenological suspension" similar to the essence, that is, a temporary suspension before it is difficult to find the essence or essence of a phenomenon-only calibrating it in external form, or just proposing it. Lixi Wang was once closer to this attitude. He said: "The period from the Qin Dynasty to the Opium War was a mysterious period of social development in China." Vii. We can find a kind of confusion and indecision in Tao Xisheng, and this attitude also produces a kind of "leopard change" or "ambiguity", which makes him criticized repeatedly. So, in the same book "Historical Analysis of China Society", we read page 50: "What is China society? From the bottom peasants to the top warlords, it is the structure of a patriarchal feudal society. Its huge identity is not a feudal Lord, but a literati class that uses political power to enforce land ownership and protect identity. " On page 190, the same sentence as above is as follows: "The survival of this class depends on the acquisition of land ownership and national political status, and has nothing to do with religion. Therefore, its power relationship with peasants is the same as that of feudal lords and peasants. Therefore, it can be called a feudal force, so China society can be called a feudal society. " Page 247 further distinguishes: "China society 80 years ago was a feudal society of pre-capitalist society, and China society 80 years ago was a semi-feudal society under imperialist aggression". eight

These explanations can reflect the needs of mobilization and revolution and the influence of western social theory. However, through Tao Xisheng's emphasis on the status of scholar-officials, we can still find that, between western theory and China's history, he still pays considerable attention to the particularity of China's history, although all this status and its derivatives will naturally be swept away and overthrown due to the vision of the revolutionary era.

Different from China's increasing emphasis on "China's characteristics" and "different national conditions", Guo Moruo highly emphasized the universality of human social development in the "Preface" of "Research on Ancient China Society" published by 1930. He believes that the view that "our national conditions are different" is "national prejudice" and that it is just like the human body. He criticized Luo Zhenyu and Wang Guowei for just "sorting out" historical materials, and Hu Shi could not touch the "margin" with the excitement and high-spirited attitude of discovering scientific truth. He admitted that his research method was guided by Engels, but at the same time he thought: "It is not easy for outsiders to liquidate China's society." The fact is that China's historical materials, China's writings and China's traditional life can only be closer by China people themselves. "At this time, China people should stand up by themselves and write this half a blank sheet of paper in the history of world culture." ion exchange

Obviously different from Tao Xisheng's ambiguity, Guo Moruo firmly came to the conclusion that "China society has been fixed under the feudal system of more than two thousand years". X He thinks that, in fact, China society gradually changed from slavery to "real feudalism" not in the Western Zhou Dynasty, but after Zhou Dong moved. The Five Kings in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Seven Heroes in the Warring States Period were the "real feudal princes". The Qin Dynasty only abolished feudalism in name and became a county. In fact, feudalism in China has been very prominent in the last hundred years. Qin Shihuang was the ancestor of feudalism in the social history of China. xi

Guo Moruo obviously realized that what he called "feudalism" was completely different from ancient feudalism, so he repeatedly said "real feudalism" and "real feudal princes". In his view, the ancients used "changing feudalism into counties" to express the great social changes during the Zhou and Qin Dynasties, which was entirely superficial observation. There were no counties in the Zhou Dynasty, and there was no feudalism after the Qin Dynasty. Needless to say, the Western Zhou Dynasty was actually a slave country, and the economic organization since the Qin Dynasty became the opposition of landlords and peasants in agriculture, and industry and commerce were the opposition of mentoring. "The county system after the Qin Dynasty is actually a real feudal system that is compatible with this manor-style agricultural production and industrial and commercial system. ..... The only difference is that feudal princes are hereditary and county officials are not hereditary. This can be said to be a variant of the feudal system, but there is always the danger of hereditary, ... "Twelve.

The ancient meaning of "feudalism" has undergone a fundamental turning point here, which was initiated by Guo Moruo. Ji once talked about the feelings of ordinary scholars at that time: "Mr. Guo has a most peculiar conclusion, that is, Qin Shihuang was the terminator of feudal society in China. He denied the feudal system of the Western Zhou Dynasty. He said that the Eastern Zhou Dynasty was an era of transition from slavery to feudalism, and it was a real feudal society that was completed after Qin and Han Dynasties. As we know, all factions are discussing the social history of China. Whether it is that China has been a commercial capitalist society since Qin Shihuang, or that Qin Shihuang did not destroy the foundation of feudalism, but Qin Shihuang's role in feudalism was destroyed rather than completed, they have no objection to this. Now Mr. Guo has turned it over. " Thirteen He Ganzhi also said in The Debate on China's Social History published by Shanghai Life Bookstore 1937 in July: "In the past eight or nine years, there were few people who agreed with China, but many people opposed him. ..... But since 1935, Guo Moruo's view of China seems to have revived. " Fifteen years after the 14th, Guo Moruo also reviewed this turning point in the article "Self-criticism of Ancient Studies". He said: "In the old days, Xia, Yin and Wednesday were feudal, which was different from the county system after Qin Dynasty. This is a historical fact that has never been doubted, and it is not allowed to be doubted. However, in recent years, Zhou Feng's organizational system has been given new meaning, so it runs in the family's theory has been passively shaken. " A team of fifteen people

Guo Moruo continued to add his reasons in this article. He thought that the feudalism in ancient times was a matter of "sealing Wang Jian's princes", and it made sense to say that the Three Dynasties, or at least the Zhou Dynasty, were "feudal". However, because the so-called "country" in ancient times originally meant tribes, the so-called "feudal garrison" was just establishing colonies of various sizes. Countries with different surnames are mostly primitive tribes, and countries with the same surnames are mostly newly built. There is no evidence in Dai's works about the fifth-class titles in Mencius and Wang Zhi, and the imprisonment system in Yu Gong and Zhi Fang. At that time, there was no hierarchy in the titles of governors, indicating that the hierarchy was only the support of later Confucianism. Another important discovery of Wang Guowei is that ancient governors can be kings in their own countries. And even if the Zhou Dynasty did have a fifth-class vassal or a fifth-class uniform, "it is completely different from our modern feudal social concept." Our old and new ideas are not allowed to meet here. "16

That is to say, the key point here is that if "feudalism" is no longer understood as "event", or even "system", but as "society", then "feudalism" cannot be understood only in the sense of one or some historical dynasties, but in the sense of social structure and its changes, and it has not occurred within a society. Simply put, it is to replace the old social form with a new social form. Such a change is naturally like being turned upside down. Apart from modern times, China experienced the most striking period in the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period. As Wang Guowei, Fan Wenlan and others think, the changes in the Yin and Zhou Dynasties obviously cannot be compared with this change, and the information is not sufficient. As for Wei and Jin Dynasties, it is unnecessary to mention the Tang and Song Dynasties. Therefore, it may be nothing more than grasping the fundamental change of social form, which is a secret that Guo Moruo and others advocate that feudalism in the Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States is more attractive than feudalism in the Western Zhou Dynasty and feudalism in the Wei and Jin Dynasties.

So what does this new concept of "feudal society" mean? Guo Moruo's answer in 1930 "Research on Ancient China Society" is relatively simple. He said: "There is not much disparity between feudal society and slave society: only under slavery, direct producers can openly slaughter in large numbers, while under feudal system, slaughter was not made public at first, and was later prohibited by law (of course, secret slaughter is inevitable). Slave society is a continuation of clan society, which contains a lot of blood clan elements, while feudalism is slavery with a lot of regional elements. " Seventeen. In ten critical books of 1945, Guo Moruo gave a relatively complete definition of "feudal society": "Modern feudal society is a stage of degeneration from slave society. Producers are no longer slaves, but liberated agricultural workers. As far as agriculture is concerned, the important means of production is that the land has been officially divided into private ownership, and the landlord class with exploiters has emerged, divorced from official support in industry and commerce, and established gang enterprises. A country built on this stratum is maintained by taxes paid by landlords and businessmen. This is what we call a feudal society in modern times. "