The Centrality of Nature in Economic Thought
From Ancient Chinese Philosophy to Contemporary Sinified Marxism, via Physiocracy and Beyond Neoclassicism
Preface: This short essay explores contemporary Chinese modalities of economic thinking and policy action as an extension of a Sinified Marxist tradition that also draws heavily from traditional Chinese philosophy. It then reflects on the French Physiocrats as derivatives (in their own way) of the Chinese tradition, before returning to reflect on how mainstream neoclassical thinking would struggle to find common ground with this. The centrality of nature (and energetic flows) anchors the discussion.
In the intricate tapestry of economic philosophy, nature emerges not merely as a backdrop but as the fundamental source of wealth and vitality, akin to an inexhaustible flow of energy that sustains human societies. This perspective, rooted in the recognition that economic systems must align with natural dynamics - where energy transforms but does not vanish - anchors our exploration. Contemporary Chinese economic modalities exemplify this through a Sinified Marxist tradition, which synthesises dialectical materialism with indigenous philosophical insights from Daoism and Confucianism. This approach views humans as ontologically embedded within nature, modulating energetic flows to achieve dynamic harmony rather than imposing external controls. In contrast, the 18th-century French Physiocrats represent a derivative offshoot of these Chinese ideas, adapting them to European contexts but diluting their holistic depth into a more passive laissez-faire doctrine. Mainstream neoclassical economics, with its mechanistic models and anthropocentric binaries, struggles to reconcile with this embedded, process-oriented worldview, highlighting profound epistemological divergences. By tracing these threads, I try to illuminate how China’s economic thinking offers a resilient alternative for addressing global challenges like sustainability and climate change.
At the heart of contemporary Chinese economic policy lies a Sinified Marxist tradition that integrates traditional Chinese philosophy, emphasising nature’s energetic flows as the bedrock of sustainable development. Marxism, as adapted in China through figures like Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping and others, incorporates dialectical contradictions - thesis, antithesis, synthesis - as drivers of historical change, but this is “Sinified” by infusing it with Daoist concepts of yin-yang interdependence and Confucian harmony (he 和). Here, nature is not an exploitable resource but a living matrix of qi (vital energy 气), where human economies must cycle in tandem with ecological rhythms to avoid depletion. This is evident in Xi Jinping’s advocacy for 动态平衡 (dongtai pingheng, or dynamic balance), a concept that transcends static equilibrium to denote perpetual adjustment amid change. In economic terms, it manifests in policies like the “dual circulation” strategy, which balances domestic and international markets while prioritising ecological civilisation- ensuring that energy flows (from renewable sources to supply chains) support virtuous cycles of growth without environmental overreach. For instance, China’s approach to grain management echoes ancient qing-zhong (light-heavy 轻重) principles from the Guanzi (管子), where the state modulates essential resources (”heavy” like food and energy) to prevent scarcity or inflation, while allowing “light” sectors freer play. This active stewardship, drawn from Daoist wu wei (non-coercive action aligned with natural flow 无为), positions the state not as an intervener but as an intrinsic participant in the system, guiding transformations to maintain harmony. Unlike rigid command economies, this Sinified framework fosters experimental gradualism, as seen in the 1980s reforms that avoided shock therapy by drawing on historical precedents of embedded governance. Thus, contemporary policies - such as carbon neutrality goals by 2060 - treat nature’s energetic flows as central, viewing human prosperity as inseparable from ecological vitality. I’ve explored elsewhere these notions in the context of the emphasis on “beautiful China” within the 15th Five Year Plan.
This modern synthesis draws deeply from traditional Chinese philosophy, where nature’s centrality predates Marxism by millennia. In Daoism, as articulated in the Daodejing (道德经), wu wei advocates effortless alignment with the Dao (道 the way), recognising that all phenomena arise from interdependent transformations of qi -energy that shifts forms without loss, much like an intuitive precursor to thermodynamic laws. Confucian thought complements this by stressing relational harmony between heaven, earth and humanity (tian-di-ren 天地人), where economic activities must sustain social and natural balance to avert chaos. Ancient bureaucrats applied this through systems like ever-normal granaries, modulating grain stores based on “lightness” (abundance, low prices) and “heaviness” (scarcity, high prices) to ensure sustainable flows. This dialectical understanding - opposites interpenetrating rather than opposing - frames humans as co-creators within nature, not dominators above it. Energy, in this ontology, is the animating force: agricultural surpluses, water management and trade were seen as extensions of natural cycles, requiring modulation to prevent disharmony, such as famines or rebellions. This holistic view influenced imperial policies across dynasties, from Han salt-iron debates to Qing famine relief, embedding economic viability in nature’s regenerative capacity.
It’s no accident that on his recent State Visit to China, French President Emmanuel Macron was taken to visit Dujiangyan, an irrigation system first built around 256 BC and still operational today, which Xi views as emblematic of this mentality of harmony between heaven, earth and humanity. (Image below.)
Speaking of the French, the French Physiocrats, emerging in the mid-18th century, can be seen as derivatives of this Chinese tradition, albeit through a lens of selective adaptation that transformed its essence. François Quesnay, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, and precursors like Richard Cantillon drew explicitly from Chinese models, romanticising the agrarian empire as a paragon of natural order. Quesnay, dubbed the “Confucius of Europe,” studied Chinese texts and Jesuit accounts, incorporating ideas of harmony and dynamic change into his Tableau Économique, which depicted wealth as circulating like blood - rooted in nature’s surplus from land, water and sunlight. This mirrored Chinese intuitions about energy flows, positioning agriculture as the sole productive sector, with manufacturing merely redistributive.
Richard Cantillon, though not strictly a Physiocrat (he predated the school and is more of a precursor whose Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général influenced Quesnay), contributed ideas on circulation and land as the ultimate source of wealth that aligned with Physiocratic themes. His work helped bridge mercantilist views to the Physiocrats’ emphasis on natural dynamics, though direct Chinese influence on him isn’t as documented as it is for Quesnay.
For the Physiocrats, wealth was fundamentally tied to the “produit net” - the surplus generated solely from agriculture, where land, water and sunlight (implicitly energy inputs) yielded more output than the human labour invested. Quesnay’s Tableau Économique modelled this as a circulatory system, akin to blood flowing through the body (he was a physician, after all), emphasising how disruptions to this natural flow led to economic decay. They saw manufacturing and trade as “sterile” classes that merely rearranged existing wealth without adding to it, reinforcing the idea that viable economies must root in nature’s regenerative capacity. Cantillon echoed this in his emphasis on land as the origin of all value, with entrepreneurs facilitating the flow but not creating the primary energy source.
Their laissez-faire slogan, often traced to wu wei, advocated non-interference to allow natural economic flows, critiquing mercantilist overregulation. However, this derivation diverged significantly: while Chinese thought embedded active modulation within the system (e.g., state granaries as harmonious adjustments), the Physiocrats idealised a more passive self-regulation, trusting nature’s “invisible hand” (prefiguring Adam Smith) without the ontological embeddedness. Cantillon’s emphasis on land as wealth’s origin and circulation echoed qing-zhong, but lacked the dialectical nuance of human-nature unity. Thus, Physiocracy represented a “proto-Chinese” borrowing - innovative for Europe but perhaps it could be said, a simplified echo, stripping away the proactive stewardship for a doctrine that justified deregulation amid Enlightenment individualism.
Neither the 18th-century French economists nor their Chinese inspirations had formal thermodynamics (which crystallised in the 1840s-50s with figures like Joule and Clausius), but their intuitions about sustainability and natural equilibrium foreshadowed it in economic terms.
In China, the qing-zhong logic persisted across dynasties (e.g., Han debates on salt/iron monopolies, Tang/Song granary systems, Ming/Qing ever-normal granaries) and informed PRC cadres’ experiences with wartime hyperinflation and post-1949 stabilisation. In the 1980s reform debates that Isabella Weber chronicles, it helped resist full shock therapy (sudden price liberalisation across the board), favouring dual-track pricing: state control over “heavy” essentials (like grain) while gradually freeing “light” goods. The result preserved stability, avoided Russia’s collapse, and allowed experimental gradualism rooted in this ancient intuition of embeddedness in nature.
It’s a reminder that Chinese economic governance often prioritised sustainable, harmonious flows over pure non-intervention - more “guided alignment” than hands-off. The Physiocrats borrowed selectively from China but transformed wu wei into something more passive and market-centric, losing the proactive stewardship aspect.
Returning to mainstream neoclassical economics, we find a paradigm ill-equipped to engage with this nature-centric, dialectical framework, revealing irreconcilable tensions. Neoclassicism, from Walras and Marshall onward, models economies as mechanical systems seeking static equilibria through marginal analysis, where humans are exogenous, rational agents maximising utility amid scarce resources. Nature appears as mere inputs in production functions - land or energy as commodified factors, detachable from human ontology - ignoring energetic flows’ transformative essence. Binaries dominate: intervention versus non-intervention, market efficiency versus distortion, with policymakers as external calibrators rather than embedded modulators. Concepts like dynamic harmony would appear foreign, as neoclassical frames prioritise Pareto optimality in abstract, ahistorical models, abstracting away ecological limits or dialectical contradictions. For example, while Chinese policy modulates for sustainable flows (e.g., integrating climate goals into growth), neoclassicals might view such “distortions” as inefficiencies, favouring market-driven allocations that risk environmental externalities. This anthropocentric dualism - subject over object and human above nature - clashes with the Sinified Marxist embeddedness, where contradictions drive progress and harmony demands ongoing alignment. Consequently, neoclassicism struggles with issues like climate change, where treating nature as an externality perpetuates unsustainability, whereas China’s approach offers a pathway through integrated, energy-aware governance.
On reflection, anchoring economic thought in nature’s energetic flows unveils China’s continuity as a bridge between ancient wisdom and modern exigencies, with Physiocracy as a historical detour and neoclassicism as a contrasting foil. This perspective not only enriches our understanding of global economic diversity but urges a reevaluation of dominant paradigms amid shared planetary challenges. By embracing embedded dialectics, we might foster more resilient systems, where human ingenuity flows in harmony with the vitality of nature.