鹽鐵論中的政治社㑹文化問題

A Summary of "Political, Social and Cultural Problems In The Discourses On Salt And Iron."

徐復觀(Hsu Fook Kuan)

《新亞學報》 11卷(下) (1975/09) Pp. 337-418+ap11-14

並列摘要

The aim of this study is to analyse, based on the contents of the Discourses on Salt and Iron and related materials, the pros and cons of the two schools arguments on the effects of adminisering iron and salt in the Han Period, taking in to account the political (including economic), social and cultural background of the time. It further intends to reflect and clarify many biased assertions and wrong findings by recent historians who have unwillingly become politically reactionary. The present work is divided into eight sections. The first paragraph illustrates the origin of the conflicting arguments on government policies regarding administering salt and iron as an outcome of the conspiring aims of Huo Kwang, who, being an inner cabinet minister, planned to change existing policies by laying hold of control over finance traditionally exercised by the outer cabinet. The necessity for a change of existing policies was initiated by Emperor Wu in the fourth year of Cheng Ho by his order cancelling the garrison at Lun Tai. This, however, should not be considered an example of personal exploitation for power, and the educated class and social dignitaries did not play into the hands of Huo Kwang in his struggle for power. The second paragraph explains the conflict as an outcome of the threat put forth by the Sang Hung Yang clique and the responding opposition by the educated class and social dignitaries. The former group accused the latter of their humble origin and unsuitability for participation in politics while the latter responded by pinpointing the excessive wealth, over-luxurious life and exploitatation of the nobility. These conflicting arguments obviously reflected an opposition between the ruling class and the ruled as well as the gap between the rich and the populace. The third paragraph tells of the formation of the policies on the administration of iron and salt and their supply and demand as a solution to meet requirements imposed by wars and the luxurious life of Emperor Wu, and as an explanation for the degree of significance of Sang Hung Yang in the enforcement of the aforesaid policies. The fourth paragraph sets forth the principle arguments of the two conflicting parties. The dignitaries and scholars advocated material wealth for the people as the basic approach, while the opposition party stressed war-time policies characterised by accumulation of national wealth for the state and continuation of wars. They further asserted that wealth did not result from labour but from efficient budgetary policies, and profitable returns did not come from labourious cultivation but from high ministerial positons. The fifth paragraph analyses the effects of the conflicting policies. The Sang Hung Yang insisted on the good results of continuing war-time financial policies while the opposition indicated that nationalisation of labour and trade brought the following adverse effects: (1) Government further exploited the people by its control over commodity supplies and fixation of prices. (2) Sole control of trade by government officials led to malpractices and corruption by their alignment with malacious merchants causing double exploitation on the populace and the formation of a newly created wealthy nobility and merchant class. (3) Farming utensils manufactured by government officials ware expensive in price but poor in quality. The difficulties involed in their purchase greatly hindered agricultural production. The sixth paragraph narrates how frequent arguments over the policies against the Huns resulted from constant pressure from the bordering tribes since the establishment of the Han Dynasty. The foreign policy of Emperor Wu stressed conquering neighbouring tribes and thus enlarging territorial limits of the country, but this policy also brought great distress to the people. The dignitaries and intelligentzia on the other hand advocated abandonment of the government policy on the borders, leaving the people in peace, but also causing impractical gaps in the national defense. For strengthening his personal power and influence, Sang Hung-yang vaguely pursued an unrealistic continuation of the use of military tactics. The seventh paragraph explains how these conflicts revealed other social problems characterized by a sharp confrontation between the populace and officialdom as well as the poor and the rich as a result of the latter's domination of national wealth and the unjust military recruitment system. The presence of unmerous vagabonds, common sight of the period, was taken by the dignitaries and intelligensia as the direct result of government policies and they therefore urged changes. The opposing party, however, disagreed, quoting this as a case of intellectual differences and diligence and surely not a government responsibility. The scholars again held the view that the existing undesirable social traits were the direct result of the behavior of the clique headed by Sang Hung-yang, namely, their luxurious life, superstition, excessively expensive funerals and possesion of concubines. In its place, they advocated living on a moderate standard which was opposed again by the osher sioup. Last but not least, they accused Minister Sang Hung-yang, who belonged to the aristocracy and who naturally failed to see the need and distress of the populace, of failing to understand the situation of the times because of class origin. The eighth paragraph discusses the cultural backgrounds of both sides. First the conflict was definitely not cultural but social and economic. Siding with the populace, the dignitaries and intelligentsia culturally based their views on Confucianism, Taoism, Moism and the School of Law. Economicall, they inclined to the last, though, at the same time, opposing its strict nature in the form of penalties and punishment thus hindering reformation by education. Sang Hung-yang, belonging to the ruling class, stuck strictly, to the legal approach although, in economic practice and in private life, his clique deviated from justice and equality which formed the essence of the law. He believed in strict control by punishments and penalties and praised the massacre of a number of rebellious peasants by Emperor Wu as an achievement. He also opposed genuine followers of the School of Law like Ch'au Ts'o took his own personal acts as the standard and guide in politics, opposed Confucian and Mencian ideas although he often quoted them to his own advantage and defense. This indicated charly that he often quoted partially from the classics to retain the benefits own privileged class even when if meant outright lying.