On the streets of Japan, there are some humble small shops, just a little inquiry will find that they are often hundreds of years old, the most famous of this kind of old shops, I am afraid that it is the Kongo group. This family-owned company specializing in the construction of temples was founded in 578 AD, when China was still in the Southern and Northern Dynasties. The Kongo group has been a family business for 1500 years, and the incense has not been broken, so this raises a question: why can the Japanese people's careers be passed on from generation to generation, and the lives of their children and grandchildren are rich and solid, while China has always said "rich for three generations"?
King Kong group
In the face of the phenomenon of "three generations of wealth", we often lock the culprit on the descendants of Xiao Xiao, thinking that the losers have hollowed out the family foundation. The fathers of the self-reliant Xing family, who dreamed of saving a little family business at night, eventually because the descendants of their children and grandchildren sat on the mountain and did not want to make progress, resulting in three generations of wealth.
The Kongo group in the early 20th century
However, we ask ourselves, is every ancient family business destroyed by the losers? Not necessarily. In addition to attributing the cause of the problem to individual factors, the social background and cultural environment are ignored. No matter how bad the loser is, it is impossible for the whole family to be confused, after all, the family wealth is a common property, and it is unrealistic to let one person act recklessly. As a special phenomenon in ancient Chinese history, it may appear for three reasons.
The essence of ancient regimes
The ancient Chinese dynasty was essentially an identity-dependent society, with children dependent on their parents, the people dependent on the bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy attached to the emperor, which can be summed up as follows: the poor depend on the rich, and the weak depend on the strong. In this context, the ancient Chinese had a unique view of wealth, that wealth security must depend on a higher status.
The most senior identity in ancient China was the emperor, and the emperors who reigned the longest were Kangxi and Qianlong, who practiced for about sixty years, not even three generations, and were attached to Qianlong's Hezhen, and immediately lost power after Qianlong's death. From the four famous works, we can also see some hints about the relationship of dependence, such as in "Dream of the Red Chamber", the backer of the Jia family is Niangniang Yuanchun, after her death, the Jia family lost its power to rely on, and was quickly raided. Another example is the "Happy Forest" in "Water Margin", Shi En was taken away by Jiang Menshen by force, and could only invite a more powerful Wu Song to help him regain the property, and Shi En's wealth was dependent on Wu Song's force.
The Qianlong Emperor
Because of the turmoil of ancient society, no matter whether wealth is attached to power or force, it will eventually disappear with the collapse of the patron, which is determined by the social environment, not a situation that one or two losers can influence. Therefore, in China, it is almost impossible to find a century-old family-run store, and even if there is, at most it will only retain the signboard, and the owner will generally be replaced. Because the wealth generated by the dependency relationship comes and goes quickly, and cannot stand the test of time, this will create a second problem - squandering.
There is wine in this day and drunk in this day
Because wealth cannot last long, in ancient China, people inevitably tended to use the fastest speed to accumulate wealth, and then use the most extravagant way to show off and enjoy. For example, Shi Chong's burning of wax and Wang Kai's painting of the wall, although they are doufu, but behind them there is still a hidden fear of the fleeting wealth, so they use profligacy and waste to achieve the "real" possession of wealth.
Because the difficulty of accumulating wealth is too great, the risk of holding wealth is extremely high, it is easy to lose wealth, wealth often has not brought benefits to people, and even leads to the disaster of killing first, so the value judgment of wealth in ancient Chinese society is polarized, not only eager to obtain wealth, but also worried and even resentful of the danger that wealth brings. Once you get rich, it is inevitable to form the psychology of having wine and drunkenness in this day and night, and anyway, if you can't keep your wealth, it is better to squander it. No matter how solid the family foundation is, it will be quickly exhausted under the splurge of thousands of dollars, so it is reasonable to be rich for no more than three generations.
Lack of concept of individual property rights
The most important reason why the phenomenon of three generations of wealth in ancient China did not produce the concept of "the sanctity and inviolability of personal property", that is, there was no consensus on the protection of individual property rights.
Industrial Revolution
In Western society, especially in the early Days of the Puritan-led United States, personal property rights were the foundation of all social behavior: personal property was sacred and inviolable, and could not be arbitrarily deprived of external turmoil. After this idea became a consensus, the enthusiasm for creating and accumulating wealth was stimulated, and the West began an unprecedented development. This is a significant difference between the Cultural Environments of China and the West from ancient times to modern times: ancient China was an identity-dependent society, did not respect private property rights, from Chen Sheng, Wu Guang, all the way to Zhu Yuanzhang, all under the slogan of redistributing wealth such as "Juntian", this kind of continuous shuffling of wealth distribution methods, it is impossible to create "richer than three generations" of families and families.
The Antinori family
In modern times, the West has taken the lead in proposing the idea of protecting personal property rights, which is also the creed enshrined by conservatism, whether it is Adam Smith or Benjamin Franklin, all advocate respect for personal property and encourage the creation of wealth. For example, the Antnori winery in Italy, the Anthony family has been in the red wine industry for more than 600 years, and they have been working hard for hundreds of years, and dozens of generations have passed on the craftsmanship of their ancestors. The members of the Anthony family are not saints, and they are also harmful to the horses and losers, but the family can go through 600 years, relying more on the appropriate cultural environment and social concepts.
Wealth is not more than three generations of socio-historical reasons
Thomas Sowell, the famous economist who wrote Popular Economics, once said: Poverty is innate, and the ancestors of mankind once had nothing. From a historical point of view, it was not long before humans were able to create wealth on a large scale, but only began with the Industrial Revolution.
Thomas Sowell
One of the foundations of the Industrial Revolution, which can originate in the West, is the establishment of individual property rights, which is a trait lacking in ancient And Modern China, and at the same time explains why there was no Industrial Revolution in modern China, and even the "Foreign Affairs Movement" could not succeed. The Ancient Chinese could not figure out the reason for "three generations of wealth", so they intuitively blamed the blame on the descendants of the unworthy, which could neither explain the universality of "three generations of wealth" nor the difference between China and foreign countries, so it was untenable.
The so-called "rich country does not have three generations" has become a special phenomenon in ancient China and even modern times, there are three significant reasons: first, the ancient identity-dependent society could not protect wealth; second, ancient society could not make wealth stable, so it prompted people to squander; third, ancient lack of consensus to protect personal property rights. The combination of the three reasons makes most people's concept of wealth constantly distorted, and in the face of systemic dilemmas, they can only linger in poverty and cannot jump out of the strange circle of history. Therefore, "three generations of wealth" is not so much a man-made disaster as it is an inevitable environment.