The notion of the possession of individualized property drives social division which prevents communities from effectively maintaining basic welfare for the most needy and endangers social stability.

According to The Analects, the government has an obligation to secure the conditions for people’s basic means of subsistence and intellectual/moral development. In cases of conflict, however, the former has priority:17 “The Master was on his way to Wei, and Ran Qiu was driving. The Master said: ‘So many people!’ Ran Qiu said: ‘Once the people are many, what next should be done?’ – ‘Enrich them.’ – ‘Once they are rich, what next should be done?’ – ‘Educate them.’ ” (13.9).18 This does not mean the blind pursuit of a higher GNP. The main obligation is to help the worst-off:19 “I have always heard that a gentleman helps the needy; he does not make the rich richer still” (6.4; see also 16.1). Mencius echoes these concerns. People must be educated so that they can develop their moral natures. First, however, the government must provide for their basic means of subsistence: [The people] will not have constant hearts if they are without constant means. Lacking constant hearts, they will go astray and fall into excesses, stopping at nothing. To punish them after they have fallen foul of the law is to set a trap for the people. How can a benevolent man in authority allow himself to set a trap for the people? Hence when determining what means of support the people should have, a clear-sighted ruler ensures that these are sufficient, on the one hand, for the care of parents, and, on the other hand, for the support of wife and children, so that the people will always have sufficient food in good years and escape starvation in bad; only then does he drive them towards goodness; in this way, the people find it easy to follow him. (1A.7, Lau; see also 3A.3) There is no point promoting moral behavior if people are worried about their next meal.20 Thus, the government’s first priority is to secure the basic means of subsistence of the people. This does not necessarily translate into opposition to the free market. Absolute private property rights might still be justified on the instrumental grounds that they have the consequence of securing the basic means of subsistence of the people. Mencius, however, does not take this line. While he opposes high taxes and restrictions on commerce that lead to economic inefficiency, he explicitly argues that the state can and should control the distribution and use of land to secure people’s means of subsistence.21 And how does the government realize this aim? Mencius proposed his now-famous “well-field system”: Humane government must begin by defining the boundaries of the land. If the boundaries are not defined correctly, the division of the land into squares will not be equal, and the produce available for official salaries will not be fairly distributed. Therefore oppressive rulers and corrupt officials are sure to neglect the defining of the boundaries. If the boundaries are correctly defined, the division of land and the regulation of salaries can be settled while you sit. Although the territory of T’eng is narrow and small, there must be gentlemen (rulers and nobles) and there must be country men. Without gentlemen, there would be none to rule the country men, and without country men, there would be none to support the gentlemen. I would ask you to divide land in the remoter districts into nine squares and to designate the central square (cultivated by eight families) as “aid” (tax), and in the central parts of the state, to let the people pay for themselves one-tenth of their produce. From the chief ministers on down, [each family] should have fifty mou as sacrificial land, and an additional twenty-five mou for each additional male. When there are deaths or moving from one house to another there will be no quitting of the district. In the fields of the district, those who belong to the same nine squares will render friendly service to one another in their going out and coming in, aid one another in keeping watch, and sustain one another in sickness. In this way, the people will live in affection and harmony. Each “well-field” unit is one li square and consists of nine-hundred mou. The center square is public field. The eight households each privately own a hundred mou and together they cultivate the public field. Only when the public work is done may they attend to their work. (3A.3, Chan) This might seem like a rather rigid set of guidelines for establishing boundaries of land within states, but Mencius notes that “these are the outlines of the system. As to modifying and adapting it, it is up to you and your ruler” (3A.3, Chan). The important point is for the state to maintain a relatively equitable distribution of land at the local community level, to allow individual households to make productive use of land for their families, and to qualify farmers’ rights to the produce of the land in order to ensure that enough food is supplied to the nonfarming classes. These principles, Mencius suggests, will secure basic material welfare for all members of the state. Chinese rulers did subsequently adapt the principles of the well-field system to their own circumstances. In the early Tang dynasty, land was owned by the state and distributed by it to peasant families, roughly in accordance with the well-field system. The system of state ownership eventually broke down, however. By the Song dynasty there were many landownership patterns,22 including some forms of private ownership. The state did, however, maintain some control on the sale and purchase of land in order to secure people’s basic means of subsistence. In the Ming and Qing dynasties, the state protected peasants against subsistence uncertainties by means of local community granaries. As R. Bin Wong notes, “the explicit logic of community granaries put responsibility for the creation and maintenance of these institutions in the hands of local people. The state’s willingness to depend on the gentry and others to promote local grain reserves assumed a basic commitment to subsistence security as a key element in social stability.”23 Of course, the Chinese Communist Party put an end to “Confucian” principles of land distribution, by abolishing all forms of local community autonomy and household responsibility for farming and forcing farmers to work for state-owned communes. Far from enriching the people, however, this system led to massive inefficiencies.