How to evaluate Mr. Qian Mu s statement about the decline of modern China

The profundity of Qian Mu's knowledge is reflected in the following points, one is that Qian Mu speaks very clearly, and the first section of the opening chapter of "China's Political Gains and Losses" is well written: Chinese politics began with the Qin and Han dynasties, "Qin is only the beginning of the Han Dynasty, and the Han Dynasty is probably the continuation of the Qin Dynasty".

And it's clean and the sentences are beautiful.

In the past few years, the extremely shallow experience in the academic field has let me know that it is not difficult to write an article of 10,000 words or 100,000 words, but it is rare to express 10,000 words and 100,000 words in 10000 words.

Second, Qian Mu's knowledge has an extremely solid accumulation in depth and breadth.

To give an example in depth, Qian Mu wrote about the fall of the Tang Dynasty when he said that in the later period of the Tang Dynasty's military service system, local military leaders tried every means to kill their soldiers in order to embezzle the property of their subordinates, and added that "many of these things are not recorded in the official history, and can only be seen in many fragmentary documents."

Whether the knowledge is good or not can be seen here.

In addition, in the previous narrative, Qian Mu said that the origin of the prime minister and other official names is ** in the sacrificial or royal (this is a bit like the current Japan, for example, many minister-level ** names in Japan are still named in the form of royal mercenaries, such as 'official house', even if the actual work is already the nature of serving the people - keke), the posture of one by one examples is also very exciting, but I can't be sure whether this is common sense in our literary and historical circles.

In addition, in terms of breadth, it can also be clearly seen - perhaps this view is incorrect or Qian Mu did not agree with it when he was alive - although Qian Mu claims to have a positive understanding of traditional Chinese political forms, but in fact, Qian Mu's analysis of Chinese politics is completely based on the terms of Western political science, of course, this expression is problematic, because political science as a discipline should not have a difference between the East or the West, only a difference in school or form.

However, it is obvious that he and Huang Renyu roughly feel that it is about the same large road, and compared with the descriptions of China's political formations that they have seen, their common characteristics are that they are more important than the description of technical details, more important than technical analysis, and more important than taxation;

And not to investigate the question of ideology and so on.

That's good. Very professional.

Qian Mu must have an extremely clear understanding of Western political history and so on, and have research, otherwise he would not be able to write this thing.