中国历代政治得失

by Ch'ien Mu, 錢穆

Press, Pub Date :2013-01-01 178 Kyushu Press 1952 spring, Mr. Qian Mu was invited to " Chinese history and political gains and losses " as the title for five lectures . Mr. handout was compiled based on " Mr. Qian Mu Collection ...

Genres: History, China, Politics, Nonfiction

178 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2001

About the author

Traditional Chinese: 錢穆
Simplified Chinese: 钱穆

Reviews

[Hou · Rating 5 out of 5]

大师果然是大师，原来名著也这么好读好懂，只恨早就知道，却读得太晚。

薄薄一册，提纲挈领。只拣几个重要时期的关键领域政策，追本溯源，详述得失，堪称历史转折时期的关键决策。不以一条政策之后的荒废流弊而否认其创始之初的价值，不因强人一时的功绩而忽视制度的缺陷。

先生关注财税政策时尤其在意对小民生计的影响，追述政治制度传统也是为当代制度建设献策，尊崇顾炎武与黄宗羲的历史责任感，不也是感叹自己亡国遗民的悲愤和不得志的政治理想。

全书条理分明，言简意赅，见解深刻，名不虚传。


似乎 goodreds 不能对文中具体内容分开作笔记，姑且在这里讨论一下钱先生对明清地方政策的批评。

钱先生认为明代本以三司为一省之长官，其后却愈加繁杂，向下蕃、臬二司派出许多分守、分巡，向上多有巡抚、总督凌驾三司之上，至清更成常驻地方官。导致机构庞杂，层级累赘，阻碍下情上达。我却以为这点有待商榷。

将清代总督、巡抚常驻地方以后情况，与当代大陆对照，可认为总督相当于身兼省委书记与省军分区政委二职，巡抚相当于总览全省具体政务的省长，二者对应省部级；其下三司，大约相当于几个副省长，分管不同业务：承宣布政使分管民政财政交通城建文化教育等，提刑按察使对应兼政法委书记的副省长，分管公检法，都指挥使大约对应省军分区司令员兼省人武部部长。那么，分守、分巡即可认为是主管不同政务的各省厅派驻县、市的局，也就不必大惊小怪了。

若按这种对应关系来看，三司降级了，不再是一省之最高长官，而是分管不同专业具体事务的官僚。一省之长是总督与巡抚，而总督又略高于巡抚。况且督抚是由中央任命的朝廷要员，出任封疆大吏，譬如今日之省部同级，也算是回到了先生尊崇的汉制，郡守与九卿同为两千石。这应当看作是人口增长，经济社会发展，政务专业化必然导致的机构与官僚的职业化。当然，这其中也有满族政权的军事统治传统和对汉族官僚不信任的原因。

这种机构的专门化与官僚的职业化，应该视为向现代制度发展的必然过程，不应批为恶政。当然，党政不分，党领导一切，正如一切政务都要满人把关一样，繁杂的是每一级都多了一个影子机构，但层级本身算不得多。钱先生在七十年前自然不能预见今日之政策，我不过是把先哲的理论套在当下议论一番。

[Aurora · Rating 4 out of 5]

真的应该列入高中历史辅助教材。读书时历史老师说：古代史洋洋洒洒一大本，只须记得政治上是皇权蚕食相权，经济上是土地兼并加剧；其时只当解题思路背了，此时方解个中曲折脉络。不过钱穆未免也太重华夷之防、名实之辨了，时人尊为大儒，恐怕十之七八出于崇敬，余之一二盖揶揄耳。

[Yanwen Deng · Rating 5 out of 5]

内容比题目要丰富得多，言简意赅得总结了从汉至清得政治演变及其导致得社会，人文变迁。也透彻地分析了选举制度，兵役制度，文化科举制度对社会进程的影响。
通过钱老的文字，更加理性客观的认知中国的历史，增强民族的自信心和自豪感。中国文化的传承是有断代的历史，但始终在传承演变。
从明朝开始的废除宰相是中国衰败的开始，没有一个高效有为的政府和秩序就失去了科技文明的基础。
科举制度并非人为的愚民政策，实为筛选人才需要尺度，然而当时的社会没有智慧也没有动力去开发出更加科学有效的评价尺度，这与当时同世界的隔绝有直接的联系。先如今全球化的浪潮，迫使社会发展出，找到竞争力胜出的因素，从而人才会朝此发展，进而成为放之四海皆为准的公里。反而在此进程中一个国家民族的文化内涵和凝聚力是决定可以走多远的关键因素。

[Barack Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

370-China's political gains and losses in past dynasties-Ch'ien Mu-Politics-2001

Barack
2021/10/18

"China's Political Success and Failure", the first edition was published in 2001. It is a collection of Qian Mu's special speeches. It provides an overview and comparison of various political systems such as government organizations, the powers of a hundred officials, examination and supervision, financial and taxation, and military service obligations in the Han, Tang, Song, Ming, and Qing dynasties of China. , Narrating the evolution of history, referring to Chen's gains and losses.

The book not only sums up the essence of Chinese history and politics but also points out the misunderstandings of traditional culture and spirit by modern Chinese. The words are concise, concise, and thoughtful, and they are indeed a concise "history of China's political system."

Qian Mu was born in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province in 1895 and died in 1990. Before the Anti-Japanese War, he served as a professor at Yenching University, Peking University, Tsinghua University, and Peking Normal University, giving lectures on the history of academic thoughts and establishing academic status. During the Anti-Japanese War, he traveled with Peking University to the south and wrote the "Guidelines for National History", and successively lectured on literature and history courses at Southwest Associated University, Qilu University, Wuhan University, Zhejiang University, West China University, and Sichuan University. After the Anti-Japanese War, he taught at Kunming Wuhua Academy, Yunnan University, Jiangnan University, and Guangzhou Private Overseas Chinese University.

In 1949, he went to Hong Kong and founded the New Asia College (the founding college of the Chinese University of Hong Kong). In 1967, he moved to Taipei and later became a professor of history at the Chinese Culture Institute. Representative works: "The Years of the Pre-Qin Zhuzi", "The Academic History of China in the Past 300 Years", "The Outline of the History of the Country", "The Political Gains and Losses of the Past Dynasties", etc.

Table of Contents
First Lecture Han Dynasty
Lecture 2 Tang Dynasty
Third Lecture Song Dynasty
Fourth Lecture Ming Dynasty
Fifth Lecture Qing Dynasty

" Strictly speaking, it was not until the Qin and Han Dynasties that there was a formal unified government in Chinese history. Before the Qin, China could only be said to be a feudal unity. As long as the Qin and Han Dynasties, the central government had a more decent unified government. The places under its jurisdiction are no longer the coexistence of feudal vassals and nations but are closely subordinate to the central administrative division of the system of prefectures and counties. Therefore, when talking about traditional Chinese politics, you can start from the Qin and Han Dynasties, and ignore it for the time being. Qin. Generation is just the beginning of the Han Dynasty, Han Dynasty general is a continuation of the Qin Dynasty. so Qin temporarily does not speak, and they talk about the Han Dynasty. "

In the case of limited social productivity, the organizational capacity of a government is an effective way to measure the efficiency of the government. We think today that the "big government" restricts freedom, but in the past, the "big government" may have been more friendly to civilians.

"We can't say that China used to have no democratic election system, but a hereditary emperor is enough to prove the darkness and irrationality of traditional Chinese politics. In the feudal era, there were originally many families with their hereditary privileges, and these were so-called nobles. But since the Qin and Han dynasties, the feudal system has long been overthrown. A single royal family is hereditary. Except that the emperor can pass on the throne to his son, there is no second position in the government, and the second family can still inherit it. The prefects cannot. Passing the position of county prefect to his son, the county magistrate cannot pass the position of county magistrate to his son. This is a great advancement in the political system."

From the current perspective, this system is naturally authoritarian, and the emperor can decide his life or death based on his likes and dislikes. But if you look at the productivity at the time, even if you compare it to the entire world, perhaps this is already a very advanced system. We still cannot look at historical issues away from the specific environment at that time and use modern people’s productivity and accepted ideas. To judge the predecessors is obviously unfair.

"Now when it comes to the organization of the central government in the Han Dynasty. At that time there were the so-called San Gong and Jiu Qing, these were the highest officials in the government. Chief; The Yushi doctor supervises and assists the prime minister to supervise all political facilities. It is the deputy prime minister. According to the customs of the Han Dynasty, in modern language, there is an unwritten law here. You must become a Yushi doctor before you can be promoted to the prime minister. Although Taiwei is equal to the prime minister, in fact, apart from the military, he did not foresee other political affairs. Therefore, the chief executive at that time was indeed the prime minister."

If these positions can function normally according to the preset functions, they should be relatively sophisticated machines, and it is also a stable political system that can guarantee the long-term stability of a country.

"The local government in the Han Dynasty was divided into two levels: prefectures and counties. In Chinese history, local governments were based on counties, and they have not changed until now. Hanshi counties are above counties, and of course, the number of prefectures and counties also changes at any time. Roughly speaking, there were more than 100 counties in the Han Dynasty, and one county governed 10 to 20 counties. The number of counties in the Han Dynasty was between 1,100 and 1,400. In Chinese history, when it comes to local administration, it has always been It is worthy of our attention to respect the Han Dynasty. The so-called official governance of the Han Dynasty will always be regarded as beautiful for later generations. This point deserves our attention."

I used to read about the system of counties and counties in the history of high school, and I thought it was normal, but when I really realized that a system can last for 2000 years, I realized how far-reaching a political system it is. How many of our systems today can be used by people after 2000?

"The governor of the county in the Han Dynasty was called the prefect, and his status was equal to that of Jiuqing, and he was also two thousand shi. But Jiuqing was called the middle two thousand shi, and the county prefect was two thousand shi in the local. The county prefect can be transferred to the center to become Jiuqing before entering. At the first level, you can be a three-gong, and Jiuqing will be the prefect of the county when he is released. The Han dynasty has fewer officials and extremely flexible promotion. This is a great difference between the Han system and the latter. Juicing is released as a prefect, not demoted. The local two thousand stone was used to make the middle two thousand stone. It was not an upgrade. It was still the same in the name. At that time, there were more than 100 counties in the country, and the presidency was almost the same as Jiuqing. Therefore, although the central government was unified, Although the local administrative areas are relatively small, they don’t feel that the central government is superior."

It is necessary to take into account the flexibility of the local government and the organization of the central government. Too much concentration makes it rigid and inefficient. If it is too scattered, it is easy to be internalized, and there is no way to effectively organize all the forces. The trade-off between the two is extremely delicate.

"Who can be the prime minister, Yushi, or even the chief of this department? This is one of the most important topics in the Chinese political system. In ancient feudal hereditary, the son of the emperor is the son of the emperor, the son of the son is the son of the emperor, and the son of the qing is the Qing. The son of a doctor is a big man, and there is a certain bloodline as an official, so this problem will naturally not occur. But it was different in the Qin and Han dynasties. The feudal hereditary system has been overthrown, who should be in politics and who should not be in politics? Except for the nobility hereditary, First of all, people think of military politics. Whoever holds the military power will control power and govern official careers, but this is not the case in the Han Dynasty. Secondly, people think of the politics of the rich. Nor is it true. We talked about the system of this aspect in the Han Dynasty. It was only after Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty that it gradually became finalized."

In ancient times, being an official was undoubtedly the brightest path in life. From the pedigree system to "learning to be good, then official", it can be said that it gives ordinary people the greatest possibility. The exam is painful, but it is hopeless if you don't even have the qualifications for the exam.

"Since Emperor Wu, the Han dynasty has gradually formed a state of filial piety every year. At least two hundred new filial piety and corruption offices will be added to each county every year, and there will be 2,000 in the former imperial palace. The prince’s guards were only about 2,000. Since then, the system has been formed. Twenty or thirty years later, all the princes in the imperial palace have become the filial piety of the counties, and most of the filial piety of the counties are from Taixue. The graduates came from a supplementary official background. In this case, the emperor’s bodyguard group had also changed invisibly. All became university graduates of young intellectuals. So after Emperor Wu, the officials of the Han Dynasty gradually graduated from school in Chengdu. "

China has vast land and abundant resources, and all dynasties and generations lack talents. The problem is how to unearth them and put them in the right place. As long as the talents are put in the right position, the team can be strong.

"This situation has been since the Han Dynasty. We can say that the government in Chinese history is neither a noble government, nor a military government, nor a merchant government, but a "government advocating the rule of culture", that is, a government of scholars. These people are only allowed to run into the political arena, and the government is organized by them, and all political power is allocated to them."

This kind of influence is extremely far-reaching. Until today, all parents with resources, regardless of their parents' education, hardly want to find ways to get their children to get a high degree.

"Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty was an emperor with great talents. He sought out the Xiongnu and communicated with the Western Regions. The military expenditures were huge. The big Sinong ran out of money. Even his father (Jingdi) and grandfather (Wendi) had spent several lifetimes of wealth. Government expenditures. It is huge and embarrassing. What should we do? The farmer’s land rent is one-thirtieth of the quota. The system is fixed, and it is inconvenient to change it and increase it. Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty can only be generous and save the economy of the Shaofu Take it out, this is tantamount to donating the private money of the royal family to the government. Therefore, Emperor Wu also ordered the rich people in the local area, the most important thing is the salt and iron merchants, to donate freely like him. As a result, society responded. Poor, those with big assets ignore the call of the government. Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty couldn’t help wondering: Where did your money come from? Wouldn’t it be me who gave you Shanhaichize to operate, so that you can cook salt and smelt iron? , Make money and make money."

After all, those who hold power are more powerful than those who hold wealth. We have to distinguish the priority and don't forget the big.

[Jonathan Mckay · Rating 5 out of 5]

为何读历史？

除了纯粹的好奇或享受故事之外，历史是我们的最容易探索不同时代的方法，通过做比较审视现代社会的情况和事件发生的根源。在西方，好多历史家已经把西方文化和政治 写成故事 ，但对西方作家来说，中国历史知只是一堆紊乱的事实的叠加，包含没完没了的名字、日期和事实。 在这本书中，钱穆放弃了中国历史的细节，从而给读者详细讲解中国历史的深刻趋势。
一开始，钱穆以反驳“中国只是专制”作为他的主要论点。“所以说中国自秦以来两千年政治都是一样，都只是“专制”两字一可包括尽了。其实是不然的"虽然这个制度的最高统治者是某个皇帝，大部分的决定与职权还是掌握在政府机构手里。从汉代以来，这个政府制度的基础是读书人。我们只能把它叫做“读书人的政府”，或称“士人政府”。甚至连明代 中国也应该是一种“士人政权”，政府大权都掌握在读书人——“士”的手里。这也表现出中西文化泾渭分明：西方文化依靠监督神职人员来走出黑暗时代，而中国依靠知识分子。 中国政治制度的优点之一是开始用考试来黜陟。当廉吏尤为艰难，在汉代，每郡满二十万户口只能举一个廉吏。虽然中国科举和政治制度有弊端，但是，中国的“考试和铨叙，都有一定的客观标准。” 这种制度可以减轻权力交接所导致的混乱。

和Gibbon讲述古罗马的方式相似，钱穆也很乐意批评制度的缺点。譬如，“讲到中国的地方行政，只能说是汉代好，唐代还比较好，宋代就太差了”； 或者讲到明代：”可惜是西方历史这一阶段是进步的，而中国这一阶段则退步了。” 但作者最不认可的制度还是清代。。他认为，清代的制度代表中国政治制度的退步和腐败。

除了描述抽象制度之外，历史也应该帮助读者明白世界目前的状况。 《中国历代政治得失》挖掘出中国历史中的有用的细节。比如，中国目前的征税制度为什么会是这样？ 这跟宋代的改革有关。“看王荆公的免役法，则知道清代，直到今天中国社会不再有力役了。”又比如，中国为什么这么鼓励学习呢？ “正因宋代人那样尚文轻武，所以“好铁不打钉，好男不当兵。” 这些知识和回答正是我读历史的原因。

[Rachelren · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that gives an overall analysis on the politics, history and economics of five major Chinese dynasty. However, due to the scope of this book, it doesn't include details or evidence to support all the claims.

[Yiwei · Rating 5 out of 5]

七年前买的书，首读。

钱穆秉持的观点主要是——政治制度是现实的，时时刻刻要求其能变动适应现实；任何制度必定与其他制度交互影响，不能单独成立。

书的脉络清晰，讲解了汉唐宋明清的政治组织、选举制度、经济制度、兵役制度等，讲到稍晚的朝代时还会和前朝同类型制度作对比，把节度使、九品中正等常见但我忘记意思的名词讲解得清楚易懂，很适合用来建立中国古代近代历史粗略框架。

[Sheldonliu · Rating 5 out of 5]

汉唐宋明清，政治得失，字字珠玑，言简意赅，获益匪浅。
“这当然也只能说它是法术，而不是制度。因为这些制度都是私心的。私心的制度，即便是法术。法术是专讲手段，不论意义的。若说法术有意义，则只是些私意义。”

Han, Tang, Song, Ming and Qing, political gains and losses, word by word, concise and beneficial.
"This, of course, can only be said that it is a spell, not a system. Because these systems are selfish. Selfish systems, even if they are spells. Spells are exclusively about means, regardless of meaning. If spells have a meaning, they are only some private meanings."

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

First of all, I must admire how much Qian Mu managed to fit into a thin book of merely 180 pages (granted, Chinese is more information dense than English, but still), and it was across five different dynasties. That said, it is a heavily condensed analysis, and one definitely needs further reading for more details on each dynasty's political structures.

It did a lot of things really well, like making a "serious" topic really digestible for lay readers and laying out a path for you to clearly trace how politics changed throughout Chinese dynasties. There was enough detail to educate the reader and form a strong argument, but not an overwhelming amount to the point where one loses the plot. I found it a lot easier to understand compared to the English readings I had to do in my courses, and I think it's because some concepts and jargon just make more sense when left in the original cultural context, and that when writing about dynastic Chinese history in English, it's easy to confound Chinese political concepts with western ones and simply throw around words like "emperor" "minister" without nuance. It's not that I didn't study imperial Chinese history in university, but my courses also tended to focus on economic and social aspects more than political ones (even then, I felt there was a different perspective in examining the politics; I'd say in uni the material was more about the change in political philosophies like Confucianism/Neo-Confucianism and major structural changes like setting up the six ministries, there was never a cohesive look at how the cogs were turning). This book definitely helped correct some of my longstanding biases of imperial China and how I thought the government operated (or I guess, DIDN'T operate since I thought the monarchies were more or less dictatorial).

Now, a few things that bothered me, and are also the reason why I'm giving this book 4 stars instead of 5, all come from the personal biases of Qian. I think it's unavoidable for authors to have personal opinions, and it is often required of historians to take a stance in their arguments, but I felt that Qian was a bit too brash in articulating it. His perspective is entirely Han-centric and he doesn't even try to hide his contempt for the Mongolian and Manchurian dynasties, framing them as alien and hostile to China and the Chinese people. He uses "China" and "Chinese people" as a stand-in for "Han Chinese ruled territory" and "Han Chinese people" in a historical context. While the concept of "China" or "Middle Kingdom" existed long before the republican era, the MODERN concept of China that claims sovereignty over specific land and the identity of a Chinese nation are definitely 20th century social constructs. Many Chinese dynasties ruled over more than just the Han Chinese, evident from the 55 other ethnic minorities that are included in the Chinese nation today (in geographical areas that have been historically under the control of one or more Chinese dynasties). For Qian to use the modernly constructed concept of China and Chinese people in tandem with the historical rule of non-Han ethnicities leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. (This is, of course, is my personal opinion, but I felt he was almost insinuating that the Mongols and Manchurians are still not really Chinese due to this past, when they are officially a part of the 55 ethnic minorities of the modern Chinese nation. And the way he equates Chinese people to Han Chinese reflects how Chinese historiography has been dominated by Han-centric perspectives for a long, long time. Qian is no exception.) I also did not appreciate nor agree with his analysis of how the administrative divisions during the Qing dynasty were solely based on military zones and that otherwise there would be no natural division of culture and the country could be more unified under the central government. This is just, um, not true? While the abstract provincial borders could be military-based, China has lots of natural culture divisions. Even back in the Qing dynasty, I hardly think people from Beijing and Hong Kong lived the same way just based on the weather and crops nearby. I do understand where he's coming from and perhaps why he's thinking like this, considering that the book was first published around 1955 and China has just suffered half a century of dozens of de-centralized governments leading to external and civil wars, then violent land seizures and reforms and political movements that didn't mind killing people carried out by a bunch of illiterate peasants. Qian was probably fed up with some of the mistakes that China carried over from the imperial period, even tho the monarchy was long gone. His life was also threatened at one point when Mao became angry with his work. I can sympathize with the time he was in and what influenced him, but I felt that I must point out the downsides to this book as well, as some of what he wrote are no longer constructive nor relevant now.

All in all, I felt the negatives impacted my reading experience (thus the downgrade to 4 stars), but overall it was still a high quality read, and I would recommend anyone who's interested in the fundamental question of power in imperial China to read this book. Hell, I honestly think this book should be required reading in Chinese schools, instead of whatever they're teaching in history classes.

[Zijing · Rating 5 out of 5]

提纲挈领，深入浅出。钱老理性而不乏深情地谈了这个复杂艰深的话题。

我最喜欢的是钱老理清了许多词汇的定义，从而准确地论述了历代制度的特点。中央集权但不是专制，门第林立却不是封建，等级森严而社会平等。

另一个极好的是清晰的对比。对于一个制度，利弊得失如何评判，先是溯其缘起，为什么设立的，再会指出它的弊端，或即时显现，或逐渐衰败。在谈论后代相似的制度时又会对比，什么被废止了，什么得以延续。

说了这么多，突然觉得都有点废话，钱老开篇明义，全书切切按着开始定下的结构章法，一点点讲，一点点透彻起来。看完觉得意犹未尽，但以我的历史积累，却也提不出什么该讲的了。只遗憾没法看到将来的人这样透彻地谈我们的时代罢了。

[Jin · Rating 4 out of 5]

作为一个也算是受过高等教育的成年人，我对中国的历史政治制度和传统一无所知，实在惭愧，我就是钱先生在书中多次提到的那种会用“专制”，“黑暗”，“封建”等简单粗暴的标签把上千年的政治历史一概而论的那个肤浅人🥹。

所有朝代中汉朝和清朝给我印象最深刻。汉朝的宰相和皇帝的权利分配让我大吃一惊，原来皇帝最早并不是所有政事的决定者！反之，清朝作为离我们年代上最近的一个朝代，我以前所理解的君主专制形态就是它那样，文字狱，没有任何自由，武力镇压反对者，腐败。。。读到满族皇室为了刻意压制汉族人而采取的种种政治“法术”，我恍然大悟，原来如此！提起清末的变法和革命，我以前也只想到了皇室的利益，全然忘了皇帝背后的整个部落的利益决定了他们就是要永远压迫中国人，不会分权出来。

整本书言简意赅。对我这种历史小白很友善。受益良多！

[Hobbes Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

此书着重发掘制度的历史演化，并通过突出政权的制度化与皇权的张力来破除君主专制的单一模式。汉代始出分散皇权的士人政府；宋明弱化地方；行省的初衷乃元清部族政权试图严控汉人地方权力，清代更以专断取代制度（但叫魂表明官僚与君权仍存罅隙��。轻文简政的倡议极关键，制度的历史根基又呼应台岛的变迁。
然而此书也问题颇多：钱先生似乎混淆了官僚化和法治，认为只需制度化便能职责分明，但他也意识到非成文条例对制度进行的松动，而这正为人治的腐败和滥权留下余地。诸多学者都以地方权力作为治理核心，但在缺乏宪政等现代观念的前提下，就只会在弱肉强食的私利斗争中制造无数的“阀”，却根本无法担保国家的统一性。流品观念固然巧妙。但民众之所以松散绝非无阶级，而是独一权力统摄地方并剥夺了民众的话语权：无力量、无集合又何谈中国人之自由？

[吕不理 · Rating 5 out of 5]

好巧刚搬家来无锡 这书正读着 领导给介绍起无锡 提及有名的钱家和钱家人 嚯钱穆原来就是无锡产的呀 有缘

钱老是真不喜欢清啊哈哈 极尽鞭笞嘲讽为汉人鸣不平了可以说。很赞同说政治制度与人事和其他制度密不可分 以及历史评价与时代评价不可混淆的基础 感慨开创制度的帝王和朝臣的智慧并对制度总会过时这件事扼腕。

人的事儿好难好难 千古一帝也偏偏是埋下政治隐患的罪魁。人与制度孰轻孰重很难评说。想起某机构合伙人讲 他们不要优秀的出挑的投资人 你牛逼你单飞 机构就要机构化 靠制度和组织效率长久机构竞争力穿越周期。老头子讲得是有道理。

以及分明是与人人息息相关的重要大事 却在工作生活和娱乐里消磨掉了注意力。巨大时代潮汐涌来之前早有征兆 甚至必然后果不是完全无法预料。但我们好像还是懵然面对现实 迎向统治者摔在我们脸上的。

BTW我可能还是觉得又厉害又长寿的帝王 万一有时光机我去给始皇帝练仙丹！（？

[Icyfarrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

这书的遣词用句，有民国那味儿了。关于汉唐明清逐渐转向中央集权这点我看法有点不同，这个好坏不能以现在国民认知来评价，随着逐渐集权人们对国家的意识也增强，然后在这个认知下才能再考虑地方权力的问题，否则就会造成分裂倾向。对于元清的部族政权讲法倒是很有意思。背景似乎在集体崇洋媚外的时候，所以总在强调此举的谬误。作者对于读书人似乎还是有点清高的意思，只是在文化普及率提高的基础上，读书人也不能按照原来的定义了

[Nicktimebreak · Rating 5 out of 5]

第一次读竖排繁体书，获益良多。从小接受的国内义务教育，对中国古代的政治、历史的所有观点皆来自教科书，填鸭式的教育让我忘了反思。而钱穆老先生这本书，让我重新认识了一遍中国古代政治。虽是一本不厚的小书，但内容覆盖范围极广，历代的皇帝与政府的关系、政府的组织架构、科举制度、赋税制度、兵役制度等拓宽了我的历史视野。钱老提出的历史意见与时代意见，制度与法术，封建社会的探讨也另我印象深刻，但也因为书小，有些观点看起来有些武断而缺乏论证。某种程度上本书让我联想到了费孝通白乡土中国，这也是本值得复读的好书。

[Tensor · Rating 2 out of 5]

和史书相比有太多作者的评论，而和正规社会科学研究相比方法不对。我不喜欢作者在介绍明朝制度时认为加强中央集权是错误的；恰恰相反，此时正是欧亚大陆走向集权。更好的角度是询问：为什么欧亚大陆在相同时间段内进一步加强集权？这就是比较政治学了，而作者没有采用这种科学的方法，且同一国家不同时代的对比也做得粗糙。
同时作者潜意识里“西方”是所有欧洲国家每项取其优者的合成体。因此有些对比是作者臆想。也算作时代的产物吧。
另外黄油和大炮谁更重要其实是个伪命题。这个可以看看工业党人（比如马前卒）写的相关文章。

[Skywalker Hu · Rating 5 out of 5]

第一章节还没看完的时候，我就觉得我之前所有历史都白学了。

之后再看任何历史书，都会以一种新视角，新体系来看。不得不说此书是大家之风采，因为也只有大家之风采，能够让人即刻就悟出新立意

[Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

心中有大丘壑。值得反复读。

[Liusmiler323 · Rating 5 out of 5]

这才是好的历史书，有对比有分析！

[JessicaWong · Rating 4 out of 5]

1.评价历史应该站在当时的立场分析，其实评价某个名人也是这样，现在好多人试图用现代的道德观念摧毁某一名人，比如用私生活混乱评价萧红，实在不公平。
2.钱穆先生从君权和相权的关系进行分析，得出中国古代绝对算不上封建专制的结论，还挺有意思的。
3.人事、法术、制度要分清。

[xjpmsl · Rating 5 out of 5]

清楚明白地勾勒出汉唐宋明清的各个关键问题

[Jacky Zhao · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely succinct yet comprehensive summary of political systems of different Chinese dynasties.

[Chang Yang · Rating 5 out of 5]

very insightful.

非常好的一本书！提供了看待中国历史、政治的全新但又非常有道理的视角。

[Wei Ye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely insightful

[Yan Gao · Rating 5 out of 5]

以史为镜，可以知兴替，明得失。

[Walkerlsts · Rating 4 out of 5]

孔飞力谈中国的“根本性问题”，可见一斑

[Xiaolink · Rating 4 out of 5]

大师经典，信息量太大。

[Wei · Rating 5 out of 5]

政治学、行政管理学科必读经典之一 提纲挈领 直击主题

[Zoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

大师不只讲历史，也以历史针砭时弊，逻辑清晰地讲过去，也重点突出地评论著书时的时代背景，让历史真实地充满了意义。于是才感受到大部分人只存活于自己生命所在的短短几十上百年里，认知宛如Markov chain只由最近的经历决定。

[YimHoel Wong · Rating 5 out of 5]

篇幅不长但把各个朝代的政治体制讲得很清楚，逻辑非常严谨。可以说我中学时期学的历史只是在堆砌素材，而这本书才是我的中国历史启蒙。