What do you think about the preferences of the European public? Do they want to be unified more, or prefer to maintain the recent status ?
Do you think of that Europe is unified under the power of the USA?
1-03: If Europe were unified/ unified eventually, it would be under an endogenous willingness or by an external armed force?
1-07 How do you think if somebody says Europe is a colony of the USA?
2-01 Why European or European leaders support a war to weaken and hurt Europe?
2-02 Why lots of European leaders follow America’s orientation instead of their own national interests?
2-03 Why lots of European leaders lost their judgement on their own national interests?
Why this kind of politician were elected successfully?
2-04 Why America can control or manage lots of European leaders?
How it does?
3-01 Why did the feudal system last in Europe until modern times, but it stopped more than 2,000 years ago in China?
There are some people refer to the history of ancient China from the Qin to the Qing dynasty as the feudal era. But for my instinct, this is not true.
The feudal era is characterised by multiple levels of co-governance. Below the king there was a series of nobles of different ranks, such as dukes, marquises, burgesses, and so on. The king did not have direct authority over the people and property under the nobility. The nobility had direct property rights or first class taxation rights (direct taxation rights). The king owned the nobility and had a secondary right of taxation (indirect taxation). The king, of course, also owned the part of land and then had first class taxation rights (direct taxation rights) over a part of his/her state. In Europe this feudal system of administration did not last only until modern times, but in fact until the dissolution of the colonial system in the 1950s. In India and Indonesia, for example, the British system of packet taxation, which had been in place, was a secondary taxation system (indirect taxation power) derived from the feudal aristocracy.
Even by less stringent standards, the United States and Canada today still retain the characteristics of a feudal system. It is the central government that has the second level of taxation. At the same time, each province or state has the first level of taxation. For example, in Ontario, of the 13% of sales tax, 5% is collected federally and 8% goes directly to the province. At the same time, the College of Surgeons administers the admissions and professional examinations of physicians and collects an annual registration fee and administration fee. Even barbers and manicurists must be regulated by the association, qualify and pay an annual registration fee and administration fee, also exactly similar to the aristocracy in feudal times, which had a first class taxation power over the population under its jurisdiction.
China used to have the same kind of management system. But it ended over 2,000 years ago. From the Qin dynasty in ancient China, the feudal system ceased to be the basic system of state administration in China. China’s central government had one level of administration and one level of taxation over the entire national system. The taxation of the whole country was centralised and dispatched in a unified manner. We should think of a good name for such a political system that has lasted for more than 2,000 years. It is time to do so. (Notice by Ye QiQuan)
3-02 How do evalute the historical significance of the British Magna Carta?
Whatever the historical record, and however many changes the Magna Carta of Britain has undergone, it embodies a core fact. The nobles can restrict the power of the Crown. Through the history of multiple regency administrations, the challenge of Cromwell, and the subsequent dissolution of the colonies, the king’s royal power in Britain declined step by step. This was the inevitable path of the feudal system.
The path of the evolution of the history of feudal dynasties in Europe had been performed many times through the history of ancient China more than 2000 years earlier. Europeans just did not know it.
The written history of ancient China hints at the history of the Zhou dynasty in B.C. It hints at feudalism, which must have weakened the power of the king.
It is said that at the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, more than 1,000 small states were divided up. Gradually, these small states merged and disappeared. At the time when Confucius began to record Chinese history, there were dozens of small noble states under the Zhou empire. The main point is that the imperial dynasty needed its nobles to maintain the existence of the empire. The dynasty had to keep rewarding (or paying actually) its nobles with resources (including the granting of land). Thus the land under the direct control of the emperor was divided up into smaller and smaller. At the end of the Zhou dynasty, the empire had no more land to grant, but he still had to grant land to his subordinate nobles. So much so that the empire had to live in his cousins’ countries. This is the earliest historical record of feudalism leading to the loss of kingship that can be seen.
The second example is the state of Jin under the Zhou dynasty. The king of Jin relied on a dozen large nobles to run the state. As a result the nobles went on to own more people and land than the king. The king once exterminated a large nobleman with the surname of Zhao. As a general rule the king was able to confiscate the population and land of this large noble. But then the king’s position would gradually grow again. The nobles under the king then found many reasons to force the king to return the population and land to the family and to restore the family to its noble status. In time, these increasingly powerful nobles divided up all the king’s land and population.
Ancient Chinese statesmen saw the shortcomings of feudalism and finally put an end to it in the Qin dynasty. In Europe, however, the feudal system was maintained until modern times. Even today, there are still many kings in Europe. At the same time, there are still many feudal schemes of governance that are widespread in Europe today.
From your perspective, how do you assess the significance of the Magna Carta in Britain?
(notice by Ye QiQuan)
Compare the similarities and differences between a political system sharing its power with the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and another political co-governance with the king, the church and the nobility.
The modern political systems in Europe and America are mainly characterised by the modern sharing power system. Parliaments, governments, and courts of law exercise some of their powers separately.
In modern time of Europe, and in Europe when history can be consulted, a different system operates. The king, the nobility under the king, and the church, together governed the kingdom in a divided manner.
In ancient China, before 211 BC, the same political system was in operation. The emperor, the kings under the emperor, and the nobles under the king governed the dynasty together.
The division of power between the parliament, the government and the courts resembled a horizontal planar division of power in which three parties divided power on one plane
The division of power between the king and the church is somewhat similar to a horizontal division of power on a plane. The division of power between the king and the nobility, however, is a typical vertical division of power according to hierarchy. The nobleman directly manages its population and land. It directly controls the revenue under his control. The king owned the nobility and demanded taxes and soldiers from its nobles.
The vertical division of power by hierarchy was also typical of feudal China in the distant past. The super-king (or emperor, as he might be called) divided up the land among the kings below him. Below the king was a layer of nobles. The super-king administered the land and population under his rule through the kings. The king governs the kingdom through his subordinate nobles. The super-king could not directly tax the population under the king’s administration. The king cannot directly tax the population administered by the nobles. The noble has direct tax right only.
The physical distance is more than 2,000 kilometres apart and the historical distance is more than 2,000 years apart; how is it that the same political system emerged in ancient China as well in modern Europe?
When the feudal political system was in place in Europe, it was not possible for any Europeans to travel to China to learn this system due to the conditions of the time. It is really a miraculous thing that the same political system was chosen coincidentally in different territory where it was not possible to exchange experiences with each other . It proves that this type of system is the inevitable path for this type of historical conditions.
Is it possible to predict one thing? After more than 2000 years of centralisation in China, will Europe finally one day adopt such a political system? Please offer your talents.
Perhaps I am running my mind too far. Personally, I see the Joan of Arc incident as the most significant event in modern Europe. It was the beginning. From this event onwards, the lower classes in Europe became actively involved in the political development of Europe.
How do you assess the significance of this event?
When do you think the involvement of the European public in the political process began?
How do you refer to freedom?
Which parts are most important for ordinary people in ordinary life?
In your intuition and first impressions, which country gave more freedom to its residents who are living in Canada or China?