[KS] Re: Freedom and property

[Charles Armstrong]

I suggest you look at James Palais' work regarding concepts and practices of
private property in Choson Korea. In particular, his latest book on Yu
Hyong-won addresses, among many other topics, the question of the moral
basis and implications of private land-ownership as discussed by Choson
dynasty intellectuals. Although I am no expert on this, my understanding is
that land in the Choson period was in theory owned by the king but in
practice private ownership of land was the reality, and was an important
element of social status. Yu himself, according to Palais, was quite
critical of the system of private land ownership. Perhaps it's not going too
far to say that the traditional critique of private property is one of the
threads contributing to socialist thought in modern East Asia. Certainly,
private property did not have the kind of official sanction in Choson that
it did in early modern Europe, particularly England. Whether this makes East
Asia "less free" than the West, which one might deduce from Pipe's argument,
is debatable.

                                        Charles K. Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrzej Wadas <Wadas at argo.hist.uj.edu.pl>
To: korean-studies at mailbase.ac.uk <korean-studies at mailbase.ac.uk>
Date: Monday, June 19, 2000 11:40 PM
Subject: Freedom and property


>I ve just read Richard Pipes' book "Freedom and Property" (Alfred
>and Knopf, 1999). The main tenet of the book is that there is a
>complex relationship between these two, but on the general level
>you can't have the one without the other. Wonder what was the
>relationship between these two in Choson Korea? Has anybody
>compared the western and oriental notion of freedom and property.
>I think it would be useful for the Koreans to rethink the whole issue
>before they start the re-unification.
>Andrzej Wadas
>Insitutue of History UJ
>Cracow



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%