Chapter 18 Lecture 5 Qing Dynasty-1

When we talk about political institutions, some are indeed institutions, and some can only be called events or spells.As far as institutions refer to politics, spells are just things or means; it is hard to say that they are politics.In general, the system is created by the public, and some measures formed under the intention of the public are the system.But magic comes out of selfishness, so there is no exact limit.The so-called methods and tactics, of course, cannot be carefully distinguished between the two.Moreover, the establishment of a system, of course, has many complicated relationships, and there are always some selfish intentions at that time.If we want to establish a system that is absolutely impartial and impartial, it is not only unprecedented in ancient history, but also in future history. If we want to say that a country establishes a certain system without human relations or selfishness, I am afraid that this hope is still far away.However, there should be weight between public and private matters.Now let’s talk about how much of the political system of China’s past dynasties was based on the public?Or is it more selfish?What is the significance of spells?Or is it the significance of the system?In terms of the Han Dynasty, the Western Han Dynasty can be said to be an institution, while the Eastern Han Dynasty was mostly motivated by Guangwu's selfishness.As far as the Tang Dynasty is concerned, it can indeed be said that institutions were being established, while many in the Song Dynasty can only be regarded as a kind of magic.In the Ming Dynasty, there were many things that could only be said to be some things, but not some systems.Especially in the Qing Dynasty, it can be said that there was no system at all.All its systems are based on the Ming Dynasty, and many of their selfishness was added to the Ming Dynasty's system.This kind of selfishness can be said to be the selfishness of a "tribal regime".Everything is punished by the selfishness of the Manchu tribe, so there are only spells, let alone institutions.

When Westerners talk about politics, they must first talk about sovereignty.Many of their political ideas are based on the concept of sovereignty.Therefore, in the West, there is a division of theocracy, kingship, and civil rights, and until now, the sovereignty of the country rests with the people.China talks about politics and never discusses where sovereignty lies.For example, where is the political sovereignty of the Ming Dynasty?This kind of thinking is rare in China.Chinese people talk about politics and always attach importance to responsibility.Just what should the government do?What should its responsibilities be?Did it do its job?Rather than talking about where the sovereignty is.Behind sovereignty is a kind of free will.For example, this teacup, if the sovereignty belongs to me, it means that I can use this teacup freely.This is right, not morality.If there is no need to talk about responsibilities regardless of sovereignty, and where responsibilities lie, there should be a morality to try our best to fulfill them, then there is no such thing as freedom.This is a huge ambiguity in the political ideology of the two sides.Now we may wish to briefly describe where the political sovereignty in Chinese history is based on the thinking of Westerners.Based on historical reality, it is impossible for a country as large as China to have its political sovereignty in the hands of one person.If a person holds this sovereignty in his hands, it is difficult for him to grasp it because the country is too big.Therefore, those who hold power must be collective.For example, the West!Theocracy is supported by religious groups.The royal power is supported by the general nobles.Tsar of Russia, supported by many noble families.Before the French Revolution, many nobles also supported its imperial power.Therefore, in imperial politics, this power is divided between the nobles and the soldiers. We can say that one is an aristocratic regime and the other is a military regime, and it is often not easy to distinguish between the two.Because most of the nobles are soldiers, and when soldiers take power, they become nobles.Today the Communist Party criticizes Western democracy as a regime of the bourgeoisie. Of course, many industrial and commercial capitalists in the Anglo-American society support this regime.And the Communist Party itself calls it the dictatorship of the proletariat.As mentioned above, the theocracy, the imperial power, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, as long as they talk about political power, they are all controlled collectively.However, since the Han Dynasty in our Chinese history, it cannot be called imperial power, because it is impossible for an emperor to hold the power of a country by himself.Nor can it be said that it is an aristocratic regime, because since the Han Dynasty, there has been no obvious aristocracy.Are you talking about a military regime?We also do not see that the government below the Han government is controlled by soldiers.Are you talking about a regime of the bourgeoisie?China has never had a bourgeoisie.Therefore, if we talk about political power, China should be a scholarly regime, and the power of the government is in the hands of scholars—scholars, from the Han Dynasty to the Ming Dynasty.Under the examination system, there are also various regulations for scholars to run into the government.In terms of institutional regulations, there is absolutely no hereditary privilege.Therefore, scholars and scholars in Chinese society are just a kind of class, not a class.Now let me ask why Chinese politics developed such a system specifically, handing over power to a generation of scholars and scholars, and deliberately preventing all dictatorships of nobles, soldiers, rich and poor?This should go further to the point that China's political ideal emphasizes responsibility rather than sovereignty.This belongs to the scope of political thought, but the system and thought are actually two sides of one, so it is mentioned here incidentally.

Now let's talk about the political tradition in Chinese history. Although it is a kind of scholar-official regime, it cannot be without perversions.Throughout the history of China, apart from the regime of scholars, there was often a special kind of regime, which I call tribal regime at the moment.The so-called tribal regime is to control the political power in the hands of a certain tribe. This is the alien regime in Chinese history.For example, when Mongols and Manchurians ran into China, not every emperor in the Yuan and Qing dynasties could control the entire political power individually.In these two generations, behind the regime, all tribes in Mongolia and Manchuria supported the regime.So the Mongols and Manchurians were a special class or special elements in this regime.This kind of regime is called tribal regime.It doesn't matter whether it is Mongolia or Manchuria.They all want to use a tribe to control the government and take power.This kind of regime is of course selfish, so all measures under this kind of regime cannot be regarded as a political system, but can only be regarded as a kind of magic, a means of controlling this regime.It is groundless to say that scholars from China have all selfishness and want them to control the entire country.Because scholars are not an obvious group in society, like Manchurians and Mongolians.Rather, it can be said that under the political system, scholars are rewarded and supported, rather than that there is a certain kind of scholars in society who come to steal power and deliberately control it.Only from the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty, scholars formed a family system. After the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, we can also say that this period was a family system, and the political power at that time was almost entirely in the hands of the family system.But at that time, there was no system of franchise to control the political power.In terms of the system at that time, it was still only necessary to entrust the political power to scholars.But in the social situation, all scholars come from family status, so family status occupies political power.This is a social trend, a long-standing political habit, but the system at that time did not make any effort to correct it, that's all.As soon as the Tang Dynasty came to the public examination, the government was reopened, so the family status was overthrown, and the old tradition of the scholar-official government was still restored.Today we want to talk about the power of the whole people, and the sovereignty of the country should belong to all the people. This can also be said to be our ideal.But it is still impossible for all the people to come together to take power.It is still inevitable that the bourgeoisie is at the center, or the intellectuals are at the center, or there are other new methods to represent the whole people.For example, the Communist Party advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is one of them.It is only a theory if all the people really want to control the political power.Today's regimes in Western democracies say they represent the whole people, so the scholars in Chinese history can also be said to represent the whole people.Reading the books of sages and sages, preaching the way of cultivating Qi Zhiping, and the state will test and recruit talents according to their merits. The opinions of scholars of this generation can represent the whole people. This is a Chinese theory.At present, the West must wait for everyone to be elected, while the Chinese use an open examination system. This is a different method.Are the ideals of the two parties different in that they want to select people who can represent all the people to organize the government and take power?According to this statement, the political power in Chinese history has long been open, so the Chinese have never discussed where the sovereignty of the government should belong.Western governments came late to the open regime, so they are always arguing that the regime should belong to us instead of you, and the people should not belong to the royal family. This is the origin of the emphasis on sovereignty in modern Western political thought.The traditional regime in Chinese history, according to what I have said above, is no longer the emperor.The emperor himself could not control the political power. Only after the prime minister was abolished in the Ming Dynasty, the emperor's power in the government was particularly heavy.But it was not in the political system at that time that the entire sovereignty was handed over to the emperor, and the emperor could not say that the country belonged to me.Chinese emperors have never said the phrase "I am the country", even the emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasties dared not say it.Just that the emperor replaced the prime minister, that is still a change in the system, not a theoretical renovation.Only the tribal regime began to replace the scholars with another group of people, that is, the Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty and the Manchurians in the Qing Dynasty. They were the actual masters of the political power at that time.But on the surface, speaking only of the Qing generation, it still looks like a scholar-official regime, and still says that the regime should be handed over to scholars.This is a traditional Chinese political theory, and the Manchus also understand it, and have never formally opposed it.Only under this theory, they used another kind of magic to make the Manchu tribes surpass the Chinese scholars.If they are autocratic, it should be tribal autocracy, not emperor autocracy.Only when we understand this point can we talk about the system of the Qing Dynasty.