Strictly speaking, it was not until the Qin and Han dynasties that there was a formal unification in Chinese history.
Before the Qin Dynasty, China could only be said to be a kind of feudal unity. It was not until the Qin and Han dynasties that there was a more decent unification in terms of **, and the places under its jurisdiction were no longer feudal princes and states, but the administrative division of the county system closely subordinated to **.
Therefore, when talking about traditional Chinese politics, we can start with the Qin and Han dynasties, and ignore it for the time being.
The passage recorded above is Mr. Qian Mu's "China's Political System in Past Dynasties".
The first lecture is the beginning of the Han Dynasty.
This book is the content of Mr. Qian Mu's speech. I don't know if it's because of the script, but the text is very long, often several pages in a paragraph, and only two or three paragraphs in a section. This kind of text is not suitable for today's Internet reading, so I divided it into paragraphs for Mr. Qian.
When I read this book, I thought it was about 10 years ago, and I had a feeling that this was a book that would clear the clouds for me, and that I should read it several times in the future.
Later, I read another book, "The Origins of Political Order" by Japanese-American Mr. Francis Fukuyama.
In his book, Mr. Fukuyama writes, "The emergence of the modern political system predates the Industrial Revolution and the modern capitalist economy in history. The elements of the modern state as we now understand them were already in place in China in the third century BC. Its appearance in Europe was a full 1,800 years later. ”
In his book, Mr. Fukuyama says, "If you want to study the rise of the state, China is more worthy of attention than Greece and Rome, because China is the only one that has built a modern state that meets Max Weber's definition." China has succeeded in developing a unified bureaucracy, managing a large population and vast territory, especially in comparison with Europe in the Mediterranean. ”
Mr. Fukuyama said that China established a modern state system 1,800 years before Europe. This number stunned me. And he said that China established the modern ** in the 3rd century BC, that is, the establishment of the modern state ** in Europe was about the 15th century.
After learning a little about European history, I found that in the fifteenth century, there were no modern states in Europe at all, at most they were just embryonic, and the real establishment of modern states was probably in the seventeenth century. Instead, Mr. Fukuyama assumed that the world's first modern state was the Han Dynasty in China.
I'm sorry, but I don't share that view. In my opinion, the Han Dynasty inherited the Qin system, and if everyone agrees that the Han Dynasty is a country in the modern sense, then the real first modern state in the world is not the Han Dynasty, but the Qin Dynasty of China.
Whether it is the Han Dynasty or the Qin Dynasty, if it is the beginning of the state system, then this system should not be a country in the modern sense that Mr. Fukuyama said, two thousand years ago, it was too unmodern. It can also be understood that before the seventeenth century, there were no countries in the world except China, only tribes.
China has implemented this extremely advanced political system for 1,800 or even 2,000 years, and the world is still in an extremely backward primitive tribal state.
Isn't that shocking?
A few days ago, I re-read Mr. Qian Mu's book "China's Political Gains and Losses in Past Dynasties", and the first sentence I opened turned out to be: "Strictly speaking, it was not until the Qin and Han dynasties that there was a formal unification in Chinese history."
My jaw dropped in shock.
It turned out that similar words were not the first of Mr. Fukuyama's initiative, and Mr. Qian Mu said this sentence probably 50 years earlier.
It's just that when I read this sentence for the first time, I didn't realize how groundbreaking this sentence was, and I couldn't understand its far-reaching historical significance at all.
What does it mean to have eyes without beads? Here it is. I think that the mountain is a mountain, but I don't know that the mountain is not a mountain.
Then, Mr. Qian Mu said the second sentence, "China before Qin can only be said to be a kind of feudal unity. ”
Again, I don't think this sentence has too much meaning. The fundamental reason for this is that, like the previous sentence, this sentence is too easy to understand and does not require any special use of the brain. He spoke very accurately, and in plain language. As many readers often say in my *** article, the author is really a pig's brain, and some common sense that everyone is already familiar with and has read in primary school textbooks is completely a patchwork of numbers.
When I read the beginning of Mr. Qian Mu's book, although I didn't think he was piecing together numbers, I also thought that this was talking about common sense, which was as bland as water, nonsense, but it was dispensable, even I would say it myself.
But this time I reread it, and every time I read a sentence, my head seemed to be hammered again.
Before the Qin and Han dynasties, China was feudal and unified.
Feudalism is a social system that has not been fully understood by all mankind until today.
Westerners understand feudalism and understand the European system before the seventeenth century. The Chinese, on the other hand, understand feudalism and understand the system described in Mr. Sima Qian's "Historical Records". In fact, the social system in the "Historical Records" is actually based on the social system of the Qin and Han dynasties, and it is actually a county monarchy.
The Qin and Han dynasties were already a modern state system, while feudalism was not.
So, what kind of social system is feudalism?
To clarify this social system, I am afraid that it is far more than a book can be completed. The feudal system is probably a cultural treasure house waiting to be excavated by archaeology.
Mr. Qian Mu said the difference between these two social systems in one sentence: "Until the Qin and Han dynasties, there was a more decent unity**, and the places under its jurisdiction were no longer feudal princes and states, but the administrative division of the county system closely subordinate to **." ”
I think it is very difficult to say whether Mr. Qian Mu really understands the difference between feudalism and the aftermath very thoroughly. But there is one thing, he made it clear, the difference is that feudalism is the coexistence of princes and states, while the modern state system is a close administrative distinction, and this distinction is subordinate to the county system.
To really understand Mr. Qian Mu's words, we must also open a history course. It's a huge project.
Therefore, Mr. Qian said, "Therefore, when talking about traditional Chinese politics, we can start with the Qin and Han dynasties, and ignore it for the time being. ”
Even if it is Qin and Han, he only speaks of Han, not Qin.
Talking about Qin is a trouble. Does talking about Qin start with Qin Shi Huang, or from Qin's ancestors? Or do you want to start with Shang Ying?
In fact, the so-called modern state system, that is, the state system of the Qin and Han dynasties, started from the county monarchy system established after the Shang Dynasty changed the law. If you want to understand this system, you can't skip the previous feudal system, which is too widely implicated, and it is difficult to explain it clearly due to the lack of complete records.
Mr. Qian started from the Han Dynasty, which was the most trouble-free.
I don't know if Mr. Fukuyama was influenced by Mr. Qian, and according to this, he believed that the world's first modern country was the Han Dynasty in China, but he didn't know that the social system of the Han Dynasty originated from the Shang Dynasty.