How to Evaluate The Political Gains and Losses of China Throughout the Ages

Qian Mu, the depth of his learning is reflected in such a few points, one is that Qian Mu speaks very clearly, the first section of the opening of the "Chinese Political Gains and Losses" is well-written: Chinese politics from the beginning of the Qin and Han Dynasties, "Qin is only the beginning of the Han Dynasty, Han is roughly the continuation of the Qin Dynasty," the contrasting sentence, a large section of the messy history said clearly. And it's clean, and the sentence is beautiful. These years in the academic field of extremely shallow experience has let me know, do learning, write a ten thousand words, one hundred thousand words of the article is not difficult, rare is to put ten thousand words, one hundred thousand words of the article with a thousand words to show out, this is very difficult, to be a university of knowledge can be, and Qian Mu obviously have such a university of knowledge. Second, Qian Mu's learning in depth and breadth have extremely solid accumulation. Depth of an example, Qian Mu wrote about the demise of the Tang Dynasty, said the late Tang Dynasty military service system, the local military leaders in order to embezzle the property of their subordinates and find ways to get their own soldiers to death, and added "this many things, the official history that is not documented, to be in the many bits and pieces of documents, only to be able to see." This is where you can see if you are well educated or not. In addition, in the previous narrative, Qian Mu said that the prime minister and so on the origin of the official name comes from the ritual or royal (this is a bit like the current Japan, for example, now Japan's many ministerial-level officials are still in the form of royal employees named, such as the 'official room', even if the actual work is already the nature of the people's service --keke), and the rack of examples one by one is wonderful, except that I'm not sure this is part of common knowledge in your literary and historical circles. Also in terms of breadth, it's clear to see - perhaps this view is incorrect or not shared by Qian Mu when he was alive - that although Qian Mu was claiming to have a positive understanding of traditional Chinese political formations, in reality, Qian Mu's analysis of politics with China was is entirely utilized in Western political science, and of course I have a problem with this formulation, because political science as a discipline should not have been differentiated between East or West, but only between schools or forms. However, Qian Mu is very obvious, he and Huang Renyu, even roughly think about a big road, compared with the description of China's political form I have seen, its **** the same characteristics are heavy on the description of the technical details, heavy on technical analysis, heavy on taxation; and do not go after what ideology and so on the problem. That's a good point. Very professional. Qian Mu must have an extremely clear understanding of the political history of the West, etc., and research, or else he could not write this thing.

When it comes to Huang Renyu here, it's tempting to compare Huang to Qian Mu, though again I'm not sure I can put the two in the same class in your academic community. But in my case it is possible, because in these non-mainland Chinese articles on "historically based descriptions of political economy analysis", there are only two people I've read seriously, the dead man Qian Mu, who was just recommended by you, and Huang Renyu.

Qian Mu and Huang Renyu's bottom is not the same, Qian is still basically the old nationalist address, very traditional, after all, this and Qian's long experience as a primary and secondary school teacher, as well as later Yanjing University, Peking University, the experience is inseparable. And Huang is a Republic of China's middle-ranking officer origin, and later exams to go abroad, it is estimated that at that time to study abroad do not take the GRE, so it is better to test. Later Huang has been teaching in the MIC. Said Huang's articles, such as "15 Years of the Wanli", "Capitalism and the 21st Century", "Talking about Chinese History by the Saxon River" and so on were all written in English, and later let the gentlemen from the China Bookstore translate them into English. To this day, when you look at Wanli ......, you can see the traces of English translation into Chinese. In fact, Huang's research question of the idea than the money to be much more rigorous, Huang's "fifteen years of the Wanli" in each of the articles in the citation are 75 to 120, of course, this is necessary to do the study is not surprising, but as long as the article is a non-personal analysis of all the contents of the source, and the source of the source can be recorded in detail to the page number and excerpts, only this one, it is extremely worthy of admiration! --Either admire Huang Renyu himself, or admire the overall academic atmosphere and rigorous academic attitude in the United States! Qian Mu's article, obviously in some places with personal subjective components (but Qian Mu did not cite a variety of notes is definitely not something incorrect) and even with a little bit of whining. Of course as an informal scholarly article, none of these issues are a problem - even if its a formal scholarly article, these issues aren't a problem! But it always feels different, especially compared to the yellow stuff.

Here are two things that I feel that Qian Mu's stuff is not as good as Huang Renyu's. First, Qian Mu surpasses Huang Renyu's stuff. First of all, Qian Mu more than Huang Renyu place: is Qian Mu's learning even feel than Huang Renyu a lot, Huang Renyu is only a representative of a school, and Qian Mu is a generation of masters. This is embodied in a tiny place manifested in the Huang Renyu sprawling things Qian Mu a few words to fiddle with the clear, in the end, or the fire has a difference. But Huang's article has two strengths over Qian Mu. First, the same is a public work, Huang's article even if more like a paper than Qian's work, but the lack of a lot of good-looking than Qian Mu's article. It is interesting to see and worth reading. But Qian Mu would be prone to writing dry or even difficult essays, and that's not very good either. I feel that if I were a student of Qian Mu, I would read the newspaper in class, but I would not sleep. Secondly, Qian Mu is a master at identifying problems, but Qian Mu, at the very least, did not feel that he was seriously trying to figure out how to solve the problems in his essay "China's Political Gains and Losses". He summarized well the objective necessity, strengths and weaknesses, and the final collapse of various political forms in Chinese history, but failed to tell us what we should do now. For modern things, Qian Mu did not speak clearly about right and wrong, and over-emphasized ideological things, especially in the last paragraph, and even had emotions in it. This is not good. --Perhaps also Qian Mu did not want to talk about it in this book. And Huang Renyu is not. Between the lines of Huang Rinyu's essay, he expresses how to apply ancient things and experiences to modern times, and this is extremely clear in Capitalism and the 21st Century. Although Huang does not say what we should do now in that book, after reading that, it is about clear what we should do. This is something that Qian Mu does not have. Huang was more rational and pragmatic than Qian. Huang was also quite clear about the problems of modern Chinese society. But in this regard, he and Qian's perspective is not the same, not a good comparison.