Ancient Chinese agricultural society was not only characterized by 'despotic darkness,' but also had elements of democratic self-governance.\A typical example is the 'village covenant autonomous body' under the system of 'imperial authority not extending below the county level,' meaning that the court-appointed officials' direct rule only reached the county level, while below the county, each village was self-governed by villagers who elected respected and virtuous leaders.\The main participants in village covenant self-governance were not the 'gentry,' but ordinary villagers. Given the level of cultural literacy in ancient China, gentry (scholars) were scarce; in the vast majority of rural areas, farmers successfully carried out self-governance themselves. They did not need gentry leadership, and even if they did, there were not enough gentry to be assigned to them.\Human society has had traditions of self-governance such as 'clan assemblies' since the time of 'clans and tribes.' This 'primitive self-governance' model is inherently human and not surprising.\Since ancient China already had 'village democratic self-governance,' why didn't villages send representatives to govern counties together? Then counties send representatives to govern provinces? And eventually, provinces send representatives to govern the nation? Village covenant self-governance, evolving from the primitive self-governance of clans and tribes, has its limitations. It can manage a village effectively, but may not be capable of governing a county, a province, or a nation, as the influence of clan forces is limited.\To expand and elevate this 'primitive self-governance,' a crucial bridge is necessary: 'commercial civilization.'\Many people like to oppose 'commercial civilization' to 'agricultural society,' but I do not agree with this comparison, because ancient civilizations around the world, whether in China or Europe, were all based on 'agricultural societies.' 'Commerce' itself is not production; it is trade, exchange, and redistribution of assets. 'Production' industries are mostly industrial in the modern era, but in ancient times were primarily agricultural. Only on the foundation of 'production' can commerce exist.\Therefore, the development of 'commercial civilization' in ancient times was also based on the 'agricultural society,' and the two are not in opposition.\Although 'commerce' does not directly engage in production, in a 'commercial civilization' society, its 'regulatory role' in frontline production is also significant.It strengthened connections between different regions and influenced people's ways of thinking (logical thinking, contract thinking).
Commerce and trade between different regions enhanced the social and economic structure and cultural and ideological connections and integration of these areas. Only in this way did the idea of "bottom-up" emerge within social groups, uniting small regions to govern large regions. Otherwise, they would "die without interacting" until an emperor "parachuted in from top to bottom" county magistrates.
Commercial activities influenced people's ways of thinking, making them focus more on rational mathematics and logic, emphasizing rigor, contracts, and procedures, which directly led to the birth of the classical judicial system (ancient Greece and Rome's "courts and laws"). On the other hand, it was also extremely beneficial for the autonomous transformation of "uniting small regions to govern large regions." Because compared to "small regions," the structure of "large regions" is more complex, and it is harder for various interest groups to achieve balance. Therefore, more rigorous institutional design is also needed.
This is also the socio-economic foundation for the birth of democracy in ancient Greece and Athens in ancient Greece and the republic in ancient Rome.
\"Commercial civilization" serves as a bridge in the development from "primitive autonomy" to "republic."
"Commercial civilization" and "agricultural society" are not opposed. So, what should the "non-commercial civilization" of ancient China, corresponding to European "commercial civilization," be called? It is the "imperial power empire."
In the society of European commercial civilization, commerce played a regulatory role and counteracted on frontline production. So, what role did it play in ancient Chinese society? This effect was not obvious during the Xia, Shang, and Zhou periods of our dynasty, because the Xia dynasty was still clan and tribal; the Shang dynasty transitioned from tribal rule to feudalism (feudal system); the Zhou dynasty was a typical "feudal system" (establishing states with fiefs and feudal politics; this is the original meaning of "feudalism," differing from the Marxist-Leninist historical view of the five-stage historical theory). Since Qin conquered the six states, abolished the "feudal system" (vassal system), and established the "imperial system" (centralized monarchy), this effect gradually became apparent: that is, the "administratively led" "imperial power imperial bureaucracy." The term "bureaucracy" is academically neutral and does not carry connotations; it refers to the administrative management bodies composed of trained full-time personnel in all medium and large organizations.\In fact, the form of government in the vast majority of countries in today's world is this type of 'bureaucratic' government composed of 'professional bureaucrats.' But one point worth emphasizing is that the 'bureaucracy' of modern Western countries is built on the foundation of the 'republican system.' The 'republican system' itself can serve as a conventional feedback mechanism for the 'bureaucracy,' restraining and compensating for the problems inherent in bureaucracy.\Under the ancient Chinese imperial system, however, the 'bureaucracy' emerged alongside the 'imperial system,' and this 'imperial bureaucracy' at that time did not have a 'conventional feedback mechanism' because so-called 'Censors' and similar 'internal bureaucratic mechanisms' were unable on their own to fill the gaps left by the absence of an overall feedback system.\This runaway 'imperial bureaucracy' became the real holder of power in an 'administratively dominated' fashion, rather than the 'property manager' of the 'limited government' in modern society.\Those who understand machinery should know: machinery without a feedback mechanism is frightening. This principle also applies to the state. An 'imperial bureaucracy' without a 'conventional feedback mechanism' continuously corrodes, until darkness proliferates, and only through major social upheaval such as a 'popular uprising,' which acts as an 'intense feedback mechanism,' can the corruption of the old dynasty be cleared and a relatively clean new dynasty be rebuilt, which then gradually accumulates corruption again, until the next outbreak of darkness (this may also be why the term 'bureaucrat' carries a derogatory connotation in the Chinese context)...\I believe that, in comparison with European 'commercial civilization,' the societal form in China since the Qin Dynasty should be called 'administrative civilization' rather than 'commercial civilization,' because under this imperial bureaucratic system, it is 'administration,' not 'commerce,' that naturally regulates various sectors of society. This also explains why rulers of the ancient Chinese empire often 'emphasized agriculture and suppressed commerce'; after all, only one tiger can occupy a mountain. Nowadays, China uses the 'democratic republican system' as the 'conventional feedback mechanism.'\Among all the ancient imperial systems, only the ancient Chinese empire can be regarded as a true model of the 'imperial system.'\Although ancient Europe also had the 'Roman Empire' and the like, it could at best be considered a 'semi-imperial, semi-republican system.'Because the Roman Empire evolved from the 'Roman Republic,' even during the early Republican period, Rome already had its own Senate and popular assemblies, along with other permanent institutions of the classical republic. These institutions continued into the imperial era; although the rise of imperial power influenced their authority, they still retained certain real powers and continued to operate normally. This mode of operation lasted until the fall of Rome, leading into the Dark Middle Ages: the fractured and divided European feudal period.
Similarly, 'Tsarist Russia' also retained a considerable degree of feudal lord politics, which could be considered a 'semi-imperial, semi-feudal system.' While the Russian emperor existed, feudal lords also had significant influence.
In contrast, the ancient Chinese empire, since the unification under Qin, completely overturned the old feudal system of vassal states and established an enormous centralization system. Although this system went through periods of division and reunification, and even saw a brief resurgence of 'semi-feudal' elements in the early Western Han, the overall trend remained: the imperial system grew increasingly solid. By the late Sui and early Tang period, not only had feudal lords disappeared, but even the influence of clans was greatly weakened by the imperial examination system.
Taking ancient Greece and Rome as examples, when the Middle Ages entered the 'Dark Ages,' the 'classical republican system' almost disappeared. Under feudal lord politics, without a unified and strong imperial authority intervening, there was space and soil for the dawn of modernity: the Renaissance and the rise of capitalism... Even in the dark Middle Ages, some remnants of the 'classical republican era' remained. Medieval England still had a parliament, and medieval France still had the Estates-General. Although these medieval parliaments were dominated by feudal lords and nobles—the 'small circle parliaments'—they still preserved remnants of parliamentary politics. One should note that in ancient China, not a single person even thought of convening a parliament, not even small circle parliaments during times of division…
When looking for differences between Eastern and Western civilizations, we should also look for commonalities. Common ground provides the basis for progress; otherwise, we can only wait to be colonized or head down a path to destruction.
