It certainly wouldn’t be unreasonable to point out the similarities between K’ang Yu-wei’s ‘Ta t’ung Shu’ and the writings of Karl Marx. Both take the reality of their time and attempt to present a way forward that eliminates suffering, both push for a wholesale shift in the way society is organised, and both found themselves in opposition to their contemporaries. It seems as though, however, a work of social idealism can rarely exist in its own right without a comparison to Marx being drawn. This article attempts to navigate tricky waters and approach the comparison between these two monumental works of social philosophy and establish whether or not it is appropriate for such a comparison to be drawn.
It is clear that K’ang was aware of communist theory, he devotes a small passage to it in Ta t’ung Shu.[1] His sceptism is equally clear however, as he doubts how realistic its aims actually are. Whether or not K’ang was aware of actual Marxist theory is up for debate, after all his mentions of communism are sparing and only seem to analyse it in the frame of ‘what not to do’ rather than as a valid theoretical framework. Laurence Thompson would certainly argue that whilst K’ang had a cursory knowledge of what communism entailed, his knowledge of Marxist theory more widely was non-existent.[2] The question of Karl Marx’s awareness of Ta t’ung Shu certainly is not up for debate, he had died before the work was written, let alone translated into a language he would understand.
A brief discussion ought to be given to the differences between these two individuals as thinkers. Hierarchy was, to Marx, the root of suffering among humans; K’ang was a proponent of the emperor, albeit in a ceremonial sense not unlike the monarchs of the United Kingdom.[3] Hierarchy under K’ang’s One World philosophy was almost ritualistic and was greatly influenced by the maintenance of the emperor as a spiritual figure. There is no question that this would have been an unsurpassable point of contention for Marx, monarchy represents, in the Marxist perspective, all that they sought to dismantle.
I was struck by the difference in scale of these two works, and an analysis of scale brings with it the analysis of the philosophies themselves. It may be argued for example that, as a work of philosophy, Ta t’ung Shu represents a more comprehensive, all-encompassing work that seeks to analyse suffering as a phenomenon with multiple roots, not simply class. K’ang Yu-wei delves into human nature, and concurs with traditional Chinese thought, such as that expressed by Mencius, that man is innately compassionate, and bad deeds are a result of negative stimuli in one’s environment.[4] He specifically cites economic hardship as the root of such deeds as robbery, taking away responsibility from the individual and placing it in the environment in which the individual exists, effectively laying the groundwork for his One World postulation founded on economic equality. Marx, by contrast, made fewer sweeping statements on the nature of humanity, and instead cited the historical precedent of class segregation and class struggle. Where Marx’s utopia comes about following revolution and the abolition of wealth as material possession, K’ang Yu-wei’s ideal is a spiritual exercise wherein the efforts of man are put into the cultivation of a healthy environment and the promotion of things that bring pleasure.
Nevertheless, comparisons are drawn, and for many it would appear as though these two works of social theory produce the same end: a society free of suffering and devoid of class, where an individual works for the good of society and can subsequently expect all that they require in return. To me, however, such a comparison is largely unfounded and is based upon the mere fact that both offer a socialist utopic vision for the future of humanity. Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto offer a materialist view of the development of human society up to the 18th century and posit a future wherein class struggle necessitates a revolution. Ta t’ung Shu is a work not only of political theory and materialist philosophy, but moral and existential philosophy that borrows ideas from classical Chinese thought and will go on to lend ideas to Maoist communism. The works may be comparable in their end goals, but in their substance, there lacks a sustained thread of similar thought.
[1] Laurence Thompson, K’ang Yu Wei, Ta T’ung Shu and the One World philosophy of K’ang Yu-Wei, (London, 2005). p.51.
[2] Ibid. p.52.
[3] Federico Brusadelli, ‘A tale of two utopias: Kang Youwei’s communism, Mao Zedong’s classicism and the “Accommodating look” of the Marxist Li Zehou’, Asian Studies, 103:5, (2017). p.104.
[4] Thompson, K’ang Yu Wei, p.47.