requestId:684c3e33ed6d74.17776972.
Historical disputes and struggles between “county county system” and “feudal system”
——Follow the perspective of the relationship
Author: Xu Yong, professor at the Chinese Master of Chinese Politics Science Advanced Research Institute/China Agricultural Research Institute.
Source: “Southern Academics” (Macao) 2020 Issue 2, Page 313-325
Abstract: Establishing and managing countries through useful national structures has always been a management problem of over-large countries. China is a political system that has been continuously extended for a long time. In order to maintain the extension of this political system, the “county county power system” was adopted in history, but the long-term “patriarchal feudal system” was divided into several ways. After the patriarchal feudal system was added as a formal system, its residual situation still existed for a considerable period of time; even under the county power system, there was a problem of self-feudalization. Therefore, in the history of China, the “county system” and the “feudal system” are not simple replacements, but present a historical situation where you have me and you have you, and a strong and long-term battle to solve this historical dispute. The arrangement of this political phenomenon is the superposition of blood relationships generated by humans and regional relationships. After the country based on regional relations was born, the blood relationship continued with the regional situation, and the feudal system based on the blood relationship was extended, and it formed a historical dispute with the county power system. Although blood relationships will naturally be born with political credibility, good relationships will also fade blood relationships. Since the feudal system is incompatible with the central centralization system that stands on the basis of regional relations, it is eventually replaced. However, the main feature of the county system is “only the best”, which is just a collector of administrative power, which is “system” rather than “policy”. Once there is a mistake in the “policy”, the “system” is only common rather than restrictive; that is, if the emperor decides to make mistakes and even pursues abuse of politics, the county system will not only not be able to restrict sexual intercourse, but will instead reduce the decisions to make mistakes and abuse of politics. Therefore, the county system only solves administrative contacts that exceed the largest countries, and it will not solve useful political contact problems, because it has surpassed the county system’s own effectiveness. Therefore, even during the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, there were not many changes in the ills of county system. The idea of grafting the “feudal division system” with the “county county collective system” was destined to be difficult to realize. Only after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the establishment of the People’s Republic of China has innovated the relationship and implemented political contacts of over-large countries with the focus of the political party will bring national management to a new level.
1. The historical disputes of two types of reorganizations and their related problems
The German thinker Engels (1820-1895) believed that the first characteristic of a country was to plan the national community by region①. Differences with natural blood groups, divided by regional planning, are the reorganization and management of national rights according to the region, thus forming the relationship between the country’s entire body and departments, centers and offices, and setting up the corresponding national rights for installation. This is obviously a much higher-level and much more complicated social engineering than the self-organized blood group. Especially for more than a large country like China, national organization and management are more difficult, and the long-term unity and breaking are accompanied by the national process. After China entered the imperial state dominated by regional relations, it organized and managed the countries through the top-down “county county system”; however, those long-term “feudal” sabotages based on blood ties remained and penetrated into the “county county system”.
The so-called “county county system” is a center represented by the emperor. It directly collects the office by directly recording the office officials and other methods. Under this system, from the center to the county office and then to the town, the country implements top-down organization and management, the base and office serve the imperial authority center, and the officials are from the Ministry of Justice. The central record is based on salary obtained by official duties, “administering the emperor’s order to govern the county, and the laws are from one system, and they cannot be restrained and resigned without restraint”②. Although the name of “county” as a unit established by the office has changed, the quality has not changed. The so-called “feudal system” refers to the division of the office by the state ruler. The enfeoffment of his own family members or those who have made contributions shall be organized and managed independently by their respective locations. “Differentiation is a characteristic of feudal politics… Although the emperor owns all the local people in the country, he does not hold them in the palm of one person, but divides them to many noble tribes with different surnames. “③ All the more independent powers in the area, the central government only reaches the place where the feudal is divided. The head of the place where the feudal is actually in the country, and lends out the bloodline and naturally gains a good reputation. “Now feudals are the world’s rule. ”④ From the perspective of power, the “county county system” is the “county county system” and the “feudal system” is the “feudal noble clan system”. From the perspective of power resource allocation, the county-level office has little self-esteem, and the feudal office has great self-esteem. “The word ‘feudal’It is not a translation of the ‘feudalism’ of the medieval European society, but a traditional Chinese repository. ”⑤
According to the academic world, Qin Shihuang implemented the county power system after he established one China. But in fact, after Qin Shihuang established one China, the feudal system lasted for a considerable period of time, until the Tang and Five Dynasties, and later as a formal system, it was not until the historical stage that it was basically joined as a formal system, but the residual situation of the feudal system still lasted for a considerable period of time. Even in the county system There are also problems of self-feudalization. Therefore, in the history of China, county system and feudal system are not simple replacement relationships, but present a historical situation where you have me and I have you, and a strong and long-term battle to solve this historical problem.
In previous discussions, there are three shortcomings in the understanding of this problem: First, it will InclusiveThe two types of replicas are considered simple replacement relationships. Some scholars use this as the basis for the installment of Chinese history, as mentioned in the so-called “Tang feudal theory”. ⑥ Second, they noticed the phenomenon of the coexistence of the two replicas, but failed to explain the internal mechanism of the occurrence of this phenomenon. In other words, it was not possible to explain what the reason for the superposition of replicas. Third, the existence of two types of systems is described only from the perspective of system system, and people who do not study the replacement of system system from the perspective of behavior should do as much as possible. The above three lacks, from the most basic point of view, only pay attention to the phenomenon but do not look for internal basis. This is also a Chinese student. The continuous “description without doing” habits are limited. Therefore, G.W.F.Hegel (1770-1831) expressed his criticism of the lack of theoretical construction in Chinese scholars: “In China Insiders, history only includes purely determined facts and does not express any opinions or understandings about the facts. Their jurisprudence is the same, telling people only the prescribed laws; their ethics also talks about the decision-making and does not explore an internal foundation about them. “⑦ From an objective perspective, Hegel
發佈留言