I think TV plays have many intriguing perspectives on the choice of big countries. For example, in our TV series, as we all know, there have been many great powers and empires since ancient times. They always span Europe, Asia and Africa, and there are many such stories in history. However, the TV series "The Rise of Great Powers" did not choose these great powers in history. My understanding is that this TV series aims to examine the rise of great powers from a modern perspective, so it does not put these ancient military powers into this perspective.
However, in these modern perspectives, it is worth studying whether some big countries are big countries. For example, in the early stage of modernization, as we all know, in Europe, Asia and Africa, a very big country rose at that time, that is, the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. As we know, the rise of Ottoman Empire in Turkey almost coincided with the great geographical discovery and the era of great navigation reflected by the rise of great powers, and 1453 Turkish occupation of Byzantium has always been regarded as the two major signs of the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times in European traditional historiography.
As we all know, today's history books understand medieval and modern times as changes in social forms, from feudal society to capitalist society, so we set the dividing line between them at the British Revolution. But according to the traditional European concept, they did not have the concept of the evolution of social forms at that time. In traditional European historiography, the so-called Middle Ages refers to before Byzantium was occupied by Turks. The fall of Byzantium and the discovery of the New World are the beginning of modern times and the end of the Middle Ages. That is to say, this incident is very important, and from the fall of Byzantium in 1453 to the most severe expansion of the Ottoman Empire in17th century, the army has been playing at the gates of Vienna, which can be said to occupy a large part of the whole West Asia, North Africa and Southeast Europe, forming a great empire spanning Europe, Asia and Africa.
It can be said that the maritime hegemony of Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and the land hegemony of Osman described in the rise of this great country are two things that exist at the same time. But in the series "The Rise of Great Powers", Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands are talked about, and Turkey is not talked about. According to my understanding, this is because the editor thinks that the expansion of the Ottoman Empire is essentially the same as the expansion of these military empires in pre-modern times, that is to say, it is basically a type of traditional military empire similar to the Persian Empire, the Arab Empire and the Mongolian Empire, and there is no modern significance of the rise of the so-called western, Portuguese and Dutch countries. But I want to say here that this difference is mainly aimed at these countries, that is to say, Turks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Dutch, and this significance is indeed very significant. For the conquered people, the difference between tradition and modernity is not very important. The people of China were massacred by the traditional Mongolian army, and later by the so-called modern Japanese army. In the process of modern colonization, American aborigines converted to Christianity because of external pressure, and the original aborigines in Persia, Central Asia and the Balkans were islamized because of the expansion of Arabia and Ottoman. At least at that time, it should be said that it was the tragedy of the conquered people.
But where is the difference between the two? Why do you say that some countries, like the Ottoman Empire, are traditional powers? What are the modern powers that rose later? I think there are two main differences. One is the influence of the "system" of the founding of the People's Republic of China on the world and future generations. Simply put, it is the significance of modern systems, including economic system-modern market economy, political system-modern democratic constitutional system, and the establishment of these systems. But more importantly, we know that the key to evaluating the quality of a system is what people get from it. First of all, it lies in the relationship between China and its people, and of course its own people. Many people say that in the process of the rise of western powers, the conquered and the invaded suffered a lot, and we in China certainly have a deep understanding of this. But in the exaggeration of the traditional military empire, this situation is also very serious, even worse, which is not the difference between modern and traditional. There are many bullying facts in modern colonial expansion, including the expansion of ancient military empires, including Genghis Khan's generation, which we often mention. Power politics has existed since ancient times, not in modern times.
But what is the difference between modern times? The first is the institutional background I just mentioned, and the second is the relationship that this system brings to the people. The first is the relationship it brings to our own people. Of course, the suffering brought by this colonial conquest to the conquered areas is another issue, and I think we can discuss it later.
Now discuss the rise of great powers, what will our people get? In this regard, I would like to say that under a certain social system and a certain system, a country's strength will certainly benefit its citizens, but we cannot conversely say that citizens of a country can only benefit when the country and territory are in a period of great expansion. We have seen many examples in history, that is, under this national-oriented institutional arrangement, the country can benefit from expanding its nationals, and the country can still benefit from stopping expanding its nationals. Therefore, in this sense, the rise and fall of so-called great powers is not just the size of territory and the strength of force. The most important thing is how much people's rights, welfare and interests can be improved.
On this issue, I think the great powers listed in the movie The Rise of Great Powers are quite interesting. For example, many commentators have suggested that some of these countries mentioned in The Rise of Great Powers are hardly big countries, such as the Netherlands, whether in terms of force or national territory. The Dutch mainland we are talking about has always been a small country and has never been a big country. And some people say that Spain and Portugal are also small, but they have huge colonies, but even in this sense, I think the Netherlands is hardly a big country. Although the Netherlands has overseas expansion, its overseas expansion is quite limited. The truly meaningful colony in Dutch history is Dutch Central India, which is today's Indonesia. Of course, he has occupied some places in history, but only a few small places can be stably occupied, and few are insignificant, such as the Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands Guiana. Although we say that the Netherlands has maritime hegemony, it mainly refers to commercial hegemony. As far as war is concerned, the Dutch are actually very bad.
China people have a deep understanding of this, because it was our China people, and it was not the government army of China, but the anti-government army of China, with businessmen as the main body. As we all know, there was a business group uprising in Guangzhou during the Great Revolution, and Zheng Chenggong was a maritime business group, such a force based on maritime commercial power. Was Zheng Chenggong's army strong at that time? We know it's not true. He is untenable on the mainland. Frankly speaking, if he could stand on the mainland, he wouldn't fight Taiwan Province Province. At that time, he entered Taiwan Province Province because he suffered a great defeat in the anti-Qing campaign in mainland China. At that time, his base areas were only Jinmen and Xiamen, which were already in jeopardy. However, such an army, which has been repeatedly defeated in the mainland, defeated the Netherlands at sea. Holland lost to Zheng Chenggong in East Asia, and so did other places.
Today's new york, whose earliest name was New Amsterdam, was defeated by Holland and soon became new york. If the Netherlands is a big country, it is not in the military sense, let alone in the sense of territorial population. If the Netherlands is a country with a political theme, I think the Dutch are more casual. He has no strong sense of the motherland. Dutch immigrants to a place often don't have much sense of identity with their motherland. Typical examples are these Dutch who went to Africa. Soon after they went to Africa, they called themselves "Africans" and their language was "African dialect". But we know that they are actually Dutch South Africans, and others call them "Boers". Recently, there is a kind of "Boer goat" in the domestic sheep industry, which is a very famous breed and cultivated by these "Boer people". These people never say that they are Dutch. Soon after they arrived in South Africa, they became independent from their motherland and established their own country. Later, the British defeated them and the famous "Ying Bu War" took place. Compared with the British, the Boers are obviously weak, but they are really United, so they mainly use guerrilla warfare to clean up the British, and of course they are finally defeated by the British. However, it is strange to say that although the Boer country was defeated, the Boer people were still the masters of the country in British South Africa. Later, in South Africa, the influence of the Boer people was always strong, while the influence of the British South Africans was always relatively small.
I'd like to insert a sentence here. Because of this, British South Africans are more progressive on the issue of apartheid, and they are more inclined to oppose apartheid, while Boers are the most persistent. Or in South Africa's own words, they are called "Afrikaners". Some of our current history books interpret "Ying Bu War" as an imperialist war between Britain and the Netherlands for South Africa. I think this formulation is a bit puzzling. It can be said that Britain is fighting for South Africa, and the Netherlands is not here to fight for South Africa. There is a group of Dutch, but the Dutch don't recognize him as Dutch nationality at all. They are just Africans.
Therefore, the Netherlands can't be called a big country either from the mainland or from the sphere of influence. What makes us say that the Netherlands is a big country? But there is no doubt that the Netherlands was undoubtedly a great country with world influence at that time, and it should be said that it is still like this until now. Not only some systems created by the Dutch, such as joint-stock companies, joint-stock companies and joint-stock provinces, have great influence on later generations and far-reaching commercial power, but also their cultural influence has been widely spread around the world, so that Japanese Lan Xue has long been synonymous with western learning and all modern knowledge. Moreover, there is a very interesting phenomenon. China people's translation of barbarians is often regarded as a derogatory term, but there are some good words in modern times, such as Britain, the United States and Germany, which are all positive translations. Some people say that the Ming Dynasty actually has a more positive formulation, referring to the Netherlands. I want to say that the translation of Holland was not popular in China at that time. You just need to look at Ming history. In the history of the Ming Dynasty, today's Holland is not called Holland, but a country with red hair. What really called Holland was the Japanese at that time and the later Qing people. The Qing government joined forces with the Netherlands to fight against Zheng Chenggong. If Zheng Chenggong is a national hero today, it is that the Qing government colluded with foreign countries to suppress our national hero. At that time, the Dutch were enemies of Zheng Chenggong, but they were allies of the Qing Dynasty. So the Qing Dynasty introduced Holland, a beautiful name, Lotus and Orchid, from the Japanese into Chinese, but no one said so in the Ming Dynasty, and there was no such name in the Ming history.
I mainly talked about the influence of the Netherlands in the world at that time, so that in Japan, people regarded the Netherlands as a synonym for the West. Now, according to the rise of great powers, the hegemony of the Netherlands ended after the Anglo-Dutch War. However, although the hegemony of the Netherlands has long ended, today's Netherlands is still a rich and civilized country, still admired by the world, and the Dutch people's national and national pride is no less than in the past. I want to ask, in what sense did the Netherlands rise as a big country? Is Holland declining today? This is a problem.
There are other countries that are interesting, but the film The Rise of Great Powers did not mention another country in Northern Europe, Sweden, which was not mentioned in The Rise of Great Powers.
Sweden is very interesting. At the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Sweden's military and political power was once very strong. At that time, Europe was probably second only to Britain and comparable to Russia. It defeated Russia several times, and of course it was defeated by Russia in the end. During this time, he once defeated many powerful countries in Europe, I mean the powerful countries at that time, including many big princes in Russia, Poland, Denmark and Germany. As we all know, Germany was not unified at that time, and some German governors were also relatively strong at that time, such as Austria and Proust. At that time, the Baltic Sea was called Lake Sweden because the whole Baltic Sea was conquered by Sweden. The Swedish army once pushed Moscow, turned Poland into his vassal, intervened in the succession of the Austrian throne, swept Europe and Asia, and fought against Peter the Great in poltava. Finally, Sweden was defeated here, and the king did not flee to Sweden, and finally fled to Turkey, which is very close to Turkey. Due to the expansion, their army has been far away from Sweden.
The poltava War ended Sweden's military hegemony, but before poltava, Sweden's military and political power was great, so it can be said to be a big country. But at that time, Sweden had no place among the people of the world, but 1708, poltava was defeated and the king fled to Turkey. The peace treaty signed after the war made Sweden lose ground and its hegemony completely collapsed, and it never recovered. Sweden's position in world civilization really rose after that. After the defeat, Sweden abolished the autocratic system, opened a famous "free era" in Swedish history, and established a constitutional democratic system with political stability, social harmony and being at the forefront of Europe.
Under the support of this system, Sweden has no colonies and no sphere of influence. Now some people say that the western powers started by plundering colonies. I want to say here that the plundering of colonies does occupy a certain position in primitive accumulation of capital, which is undeniable. But it should be said that this is not the most important factor, because many modern industrialized countries have no colonies, including Germany and of course Sweden. Sweden has no colony and no sphere of influence, but its industrialization has come from behind, and its per capita output value and income now even surpass Britain and the United States, making it one of the highest countries in the world. I don't need to say anything about Swedish culture. As we all know, it is a pity that we in China have not won the Nobel Prize so far. This Nobel Prize was judged by Sweden. It is the highest prize in almost all disciplines in the world except mathematics.
Sweden's social welfare system is unique in the world. No country in the world has a more exemplary role than Sweden. The Swedish socialist model of "from cradle to grave" first became the worldwide model of democratic socialism. Later, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Sweden became an inspiring model of socialism in the world, and "what you say must be called Sweden" became a beautiful talk of leftists in various countries. Does anyone in Sweden today miss the glory of the great king before poltava's defeat? Of course, there are, but it should be said that there are very few, but the glory and pride of Swedes today can be compared with those of their subjects in those days. So I said that as long as the citizens of a country can really stand up and the country is strong, they will stand up. Even in the so-called decline period of the country, Sweden and the Netherlands can be said to have declined as hegemony, but the so-called decline of these two countries is completely different from the modern situation of China and India, which means that their citizens still have dignity. And a strong country will always bring people's dignity, which should be no problem. As China people, we all hope that our country will be strong, both politically and militarily, because in many cases, a strong country can enhance people's dignity. But what I want to say here is that this is in many cases, not all cases. In some cases, the strength of a country can not only bring national dignity, but also bring national humiliation.
Let me give you an example. As we all know, many imperial dramas have been broadcast in our country recently, and the most popular one is Qin Shihuang. There is no doubt that Qin is a powerful country, and it is a very powerful country. There is a saying in the Tang Dynasty that "men in China can face the fiercest battles, but their officers drive them away like chickens and dogs". We might as well look at how Qin people evaluate themselves. Does Qin have any objections? I don't know, but I'm not listing opponents here. What I have listed here are Qiang Qin's theorists. How did they show the power of Qin and the status of the common people? What I say here is completely official. As we all know, the strength of Qin benefited from Shang Yang's political reform. In the past, traditional history books gave a high evaluation of Shang Yang's political reform, because Shang Yang's political reform made Qin a rich country, Qiang Bing. Later, Qin Shihuang unified the whole country, relying on the legalist theory with Han Fei as the master. It can be said that Shang Yang and Han Fei represent the official theory and orthodox theory that make Qin powerful, and they can also be said to be the ideological basis of Qin State. This is not what the opposition said, it is entirely their official statement.
How do the rulers of Qin say that they are powerful, and how do the rulers and authorities of Qin sum up their own strength? In the Book of Shang Jun, it is said that it was written by Shang Yang. Now it is generally believed that some chapters may be written by Shang Yang, and some may be written by Shang Yang's later research. I suggest you read Shang Jun's book. If you are interested, everything is wrong. It's an anecdote of the ages. It's hard to understand what China is like just by reading the Four Books and Five Classics. Without reading Shang Jun's book, it is impossible to know what tradition is, and everything is wrong. There is a chapter in Shang Jun's book called "The Weak", which openly declares that "the weak make the country strong and the strong make the country weak; If the country has a way, it is in the weak people. " After the broadcast of The Rise of Great Powers, I read some articles saying that western democracy is actually not a good thing. Why? Democracy began in Greece and Rome. Because westerners are aggressive, they want to conquer foreign countries, so their own people have to unite, so they have established a democratic system, which is good for their own people and bad for foreigners. China is just the opposite. China is a peace-loving country. We don't conquer, so we don't need a democratic system. We can treat our own people badly, because we don't want to conquer others, so we don't care much about giving our own people some benefits and uniting to conquer foreign countries. We in China don't have this tradition. Qin Shihuang's system was later considered more humane than democracy, because democracy was good for domestic people and bad for foreigners. In our country, the previous system seems to be unfavorable to the domestic people, but it is a sample of world peace.
But if you look at the books of Han Feizi and Shang Jun, you will know why you emphasize power. Is to resort to belligerence and external expansion. I also want to mention one thing. At the end of the Qing Dynasty, many people in China vowed to learn from the West and make China strong enough to restore the military strength in the Qin and Han Dynasties. At that time, many people in China, including Liang Qichao, used this word and told us to build militarism. Later, when we went to war with Japan, militarism became a derogatory term. However, during the Meiji Restoration, militarism was once used as a commendatory term. As we all know, Liang Qichao once said that China developed from a feudal society to a militaristic society. Therefore, if westerners want to conquer the outside world, they need to engage in democracy internally. Assuming this statement is true, I don't think it is true, because frankly speaking, including Greece and Rome, of course, they also conquered from abroad, but foreign conquest does not necessarily require democracy, such as the Persian Empire. In addition, the basic driving force of democracy still comes from home, not from abroad.
However, the Legalist theory does say so, that is to say, if our country wants to be strong and conquer foreign countries, we must first clean up our own people and obey them. That's what Shang Yang said. He said, if you can't even clean up your own people, can you conquer other places? His logic is such logic. To conquer the enemy, we must first conquer our own people, so there is a saying in Shang Jun's book, "Those who can rule the world must first rule their people, and those who can defeat strong enemies must first defeat their people." The common people have almost become their enemies. If I want to defeat the enemy, I must first defeat the people in my own country. Therefore, the Book of Shang Jun clearly points out that a ruler must never benefit the people, and he must trample on them. This statement is naked and we are very surprised after reading it. Shang Yang is really cruel enough to hide it at all. He clearly said that "the people have defeated their politics and the country has become weak;" Politics is better than the people, and soldiers are stronger than the public. " So he put forward a view that in order to "control the people", you must never be soft-hearted. He said that the kinder you are, the more people will resist. He said, "there is no loyal minister in governing the country, and there is no filial son in loving the father." In order to "win the people", we must never make the people smart. From Shang Yang to Han Fei, it is repeatedly said that the way to strengthen the country lies in ignorance. "Foolish farmers don't know, if they don't learn well, they will be ill with agriculture." If they say that people are stupid, they will only pay food and pay taxes, and know nothing else. He said, "If you are stupid, you will know that you can be king." People are stupid. If I am smarter than them, I can be king. If everyone is smart, it will be difficult.
Then a powerful country will weaken its people. For the sake of the weak people, people can never eat enough and wear warm clothes. Shang Yang said, "When farmers are full, they lose weight at the age of four." As long as they have enough food and clothing, they will not work hard, so they must search for poverty. Shang Yang has a saying, "How can the people govern it?" People only hope that the country will save them when they are poor. If they were all rich, would they still want you? In his view, if this country is to be strong, it is necessary to let the people "go to Tibet and not accumulate millet at home." There is no grain in the people's homes, and all the grains are in the king's place. Moreover, there must be a very harsh household registration system. "There is no escape between the lines, there is no movement between the lines, there is no cure, even five, distinguish it with chapters, make it with bundles, and there is no tolerance." In the end, he died in this system. When Shang Yang fled, he had to stay in a hotel. The hotel owner said that people who don't get a certificate at will be implicated. So Shang Yang sighed and said it was suicide. In the end, he didn't escape and was caught in pieces. But although Shang Yang is dead, his system will still exist for a long time, if not immortal.
The Book of Shang Jun clearly points out that ordinary people are miserable wretches, and they must never be made to feel better. If their wishes are met, just play tricks on them and make them rich, and there will be fewer of them. Only when they are down and out will they work hard, that is, "let the people do whatever they want, so there are many traitors." Poor people are powerful, and rich people are obscene. "Said the people must be humiliated, so as to know the dignity of adults, must be humble, so as to understand the power of an official, must be poor, so as to work hard for your reward. That is, "the humiliation of the people will be expensive, the weak will respect the officials, and the poor will be rewarded." Therefore, if we want to "enrich Qiang Bing", we must plunge the people into humiliation, weakness, poverty and stupidity.
What are the benefits of such a powerful country to the people? However, I think some of our previous history books often have a unified judgment. They always think that a country is stronger and will be stronger in all aspects. For example, we know that Qin is really strong militarily, so we say that his economy and politics are definitely better. Therefore, we say that Qin's conquest of the six countries has an economic basis, because Qin's economy has indeed developed greatly after Shang Yang's political reform. This statement, I want to say, is not completely unreasonable. After Shang Yang's political reform, Qin's economy did not improve, but until Qin unified the six countries, the economic level of Qin was still very backward in the whole land of China at that time, and previous history books often made wrong judgments on this point. This kind of misjudgment may come from a passage in Historical Records, which once said that "the land in Guanzhong accounts for one third of the world, the population is only three, but the wealth accounts for one sixth." But for decades, many scholars who study economic history, geography and history have pointed out that Sima Qian's sentence is the language of a writer, not the historical reality at that time. According to the analysis of the data of counties and countries in Qin and Han dynasties in these books, the so-called Guanzhong mentioned by Sima Qian at that time was not the small Guanzhong mentioned today, but not just the Guanzhong Plain. The Guanzhong mentioned by Sima Qian, including all the old places of Qin State during the Warring States Period, does occupy about one third of the world territory, but its population, even during the Western Han Dynasty, immigrated to Guanzhong many times. The area of Wei, Zhao, Han and Qi in Guandong only accounts for 1 1.4%, but the population accounts for 60%. Moreover, in the case of food self-sufficiency, at least 4 million stones are exported to Guanzhong every year, and a large number of handicrafts such as textiles are imported from Kanto. In fact, Qin's economy is very backward, and Qin people are very poor. But, of course, he is a militarist and his army is really strong.
Qin's economy is very underdeveloped, and its politics is even more harsh. I think Shang Yang and Han Fei are rare frank people in China's ancient and modern history. Shang Yang said publicly that as a politician, I just want to make people unhappy. I just want to do what the people hate and never do what the people are happy, so that the country will be strong. "Politics is evil for the people and the people are weak; Politics is what the people like, and the people are powerful. The people are weak and the country is strong, and the people are strong and the people are weak. ..... the people are strong and the soldiers are weak. ..... The people are weak and the soldiers are strong. " The more oppressed the people, the stronger the country, the more obedient the people, and the weaker the country. According to his logic, it is really that the country is strong and the people are even more sad this day.
In fact, there are many tyrants in ancient and modern China and abroad, I think so, but dare to say so naked, Shang Yang and Han Fei may be the most unscrupulous. In this case, although Qin is powerful, do you think the people of Qin can live a good life? Here, I don't want to list specific examples of Qin tyranny. We just want to understand a simple truth. If the ruler of a country openly says that my rule is to make people humiliated, weak, poor and stupid, it is to do things that people hate, and Shang Yang and others are so arrogant that they don't do things that people like. What can you do to me? I'm a gangster. Who am I afraid of? Today, there are some books about how the people in the Qin Dynasty were happy. I don't think anyone needs to refute them at all. Qiang Qin's theorists, such as Shang Yang and Han Fei, have vehemently refuted them. They themselves say that we are strong because we trample the people under our feet.
Recently, there was a historical drama, and the theme song said, "He who wins the hearts of the people wins the world.". After reading it, I'm really heartless. It doesn't matter whether I believe it or not, but do Shang Yang and Han Fei believe it? Do they believe that they are people who win the hearts of the people? It is true that only under certain systems can people win the hearts of the people and win the world. In other words, in a democratic system, it is really the people who win the hearts of the people who win the world. The simplest democracy is to rely on votes. If people don't choose you, you can't win the world. To put it bluntly, it's that simple. How can unpopular people win the world under a democratic system? But under the legalist system, if he really won the hearts of the people, why did he do it? Obviously, he just knows that people are unhappy. Shang Yang made it clear that politics is evil for the people. I am the ruler who makes people feel disgusted. Shang Yang made it clear that I am unpopular, but I just won the world. What do you think of me?
So I think, if we regard this kind wish as a historical fact of the authoritarian era, wouldn't it be a thief who wins and loses? Is the phenomenon of "barbarian conquest", which has almost become a routine phenomenon in ancient history, also the "popular will" of the conquered people (usually with absolute superiority in number)? Can this view of history be established? To be honest, I think it is a good phenomenon that people win the hearts of the people and win the world, but because it is a good phenomenon, democracy is a good thing. In fact, if you look at what Han Fei and Shang Yang said, it is obvious that these theorists never believed that the people would support them. They had no idea that Han Fei would come to this point. Ruler, don't think that others like you. Maybe your wife and children will set you up. He said that as a ruler, everyone wants to plot against you, including his wife and children, but you have the ability, that is, when everyone hates you, you can make everyone obey, even if you are unhappy, but I want you to dare not object, or you can't object. First of all, I can monopolize organizational resources, destroy folk identity, take advantage of human weaknesses, and so on. This is the highest realm advocated by legalists.
This kind of Qiang Qin, it should be said that when we read these two books today, it will make people feel creepy, but I want to say, is it good to be a weak country under such circumstances? As I said earlier, the six Kanto countries are richer than Qin, and the people of the six Kanto countries are richer than Qin in peacetime, which is probably no problem. But because you have a neighbor like Qiang Qin, it is of course very painful to be defeated. As we all know, Zhao was defeated by Qin, and hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war were killed by Qin. The whole country mourned, and all young people were spared. The country of orphans and widows is really endless. Therefore, the way of "strengthening the country and weakening the people" is abhorrent, and the Kanto countries can be regarded as Yin Jian if they don't know how to strengthen themselves. In that case, I think the Leninist position of "letting their own government fail in the war" is also undesirable, which is too much.