What are the risks? Is it a trick? What's the matter? Glutinous? Are you better than Li Na? Yu? What's wrong with "neon and recovery means stupidity" Rough discharge? Glutinous? What's the matter with you? What's the matter with you? 7. Dare to plant a screen? Are you a peach bear? Do you dare to plant jiaozi and pine peaches? What is the explanation? What is the answer? Description of species frequency of larval graying > What is the difference between species and species? Ton leakage? Glutinous? Is the little otter off? Is Xin Xin Kang's father Xin Shi punished? Lazy rake baby otter insurance? Proper placement? Yu? Just rake seed powder and peaches to keep you safe? Sagging? Is the second peach stall annoying? Hey? Los Angeles? Are you ready to shoot the little otter? [14] Song Yuan? ≌ hoop to Di 2? Hey? Vent? Glutinous? Mysterious? Knock and copy? Little otter? What does guanidine mean? Is it lazy to grow peaches? Fierce gull? What about detention? Φ shortcomings? What is the punishment? Do you want to write pure creation? ! ? Collection? Ellipsis? Glutinous? Young Tao? Hey? Hey? Teach Zheng? Title? ♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴♴𘂌♴♴♴ϘϘϘϘϘ9 Plant jiaozi, pine peaches and stalks? Ring correction? ; ず⒄ structure? Peach is lazy! I [27] Lin Yuan also listed in detail what he defined as the specific performance of this kind of inhibition of business. He said that "there are political and social measures to suppress private businessmen: from Shang Yang's' those who benefit at the end of things' to' taking them as rewards' (Historical Records and Biography of Shang Jun), Qin Shihuang's' garrison',' Jiaren' is famous for his lack of land (Hanshu Food Record),' no official should be an official' (Historical Records). There are also economic measures: from Shang Yang's "Re-closing the Gate to the City" (Shang Jun Shu Reclamation Order) to the doubling of merchants' taxes in the early Han Dynasty, until all kinds of commercial taxes in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, from Qin Shihuang's "Moving the World to Be Rich in Xianyang" (Historical Records of Qin Shihuang) to Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty's "Counting Death", until the governments at all levels in the Ming and Qing Dynasties paid more taxes on merchants. "In terms of protecting and developing state-owned businesses, there are mainly three policies: First, the monopoly system is implemented. From Shang Yang's Yi Shan Ze (Shang Jun Shu Ken Ling), to the salt and iron official camp in Han Dynasty, until the salt and tea monopoly in Qing Dynasty; The second is to develop officials and businessmen. The state occupied the market of bulk commodities or special commodities, crowded out private businessmen, seized commercial profits, and began to control grain trade from Shang Yang, "making businessmen have no income and farmers have no income" (Shang Jun Ken Ling Shu), which was "all-loss" in the Han Dynasty until various government and business organizations in the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Third, the state monopolizes the right to coin. Therefore, all the benefits in this respect are recovered to the state, and half of the coins are minted from Qin Shihuang (Note: Qin State monopolizes minting coins, see the diagnostic seal in Qin Bamboo Slips:' Book: A Wu Jia, B Tieyi Menc, D and S $110, which are combined with each other and tell them:' C stole the money, D Zuozhu. Both parties get this money and money by seizing the house, and they have to pay the price for coming here. "Bamboo Slips of Qin Tomb in Sleeping Tiger Land", Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1978, p. 252. ) Since Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty began casting five baht, the right to coin has been controlled by the central government. It can be seen that the policy of restraining business in ancient China was never a suppression of business activities. It only suppresses private business, but never suppresses official business. On the contrary, it protects and promotes its development, and at the same time, it is used as a means to curb private business. Obviously, Lin Yuan has given a new explanation to the concept of commercial repression, which is actually similar to the mercantilism in modern western countries. On the one hand, it seems to take care of historical facts, on the other hand, it also maintains the traditional view that China is a business-inhibiting society. It should be said that this view is quite convincing, and even some authors who openly oppose that the ancient society in China is a business-inhibiting society agree with this view, arguing that the ancient officials and businessmen in China occupied a dominant position and private business was greatly suppressed. For example, Changhua Chen, the author of "Questioning the Restraint of Commerce-On the Ancient Tax System in China", completely refuted the statement of restraining commerce, but the fact is that private commerce has been restrained and government-run commerce has played a leading role in control. At the beginning of his article, he said, "Most rulers in China emphasized commerce. Engaging in business affairs is not so much to suppress business as to emphasize business "[28]. The difference lies not in the fact, but in the use of nouns to give the same thing different names. This statement seems to be only a revision of the traditional statement, not a subversion. Since private business is still suppressed, it is not so important to regard supporting government-run business as suppressing business or emphasizing business. For some people who stick to the original concept, it seems that they are not satisfied that this statement is a revision of the traditional statement. In their view, this statement is not only a revision of the traditional statement, but also a strengthening of the traditional statement. More importantly, it can also prove that the normal economic development of China has been destroyed and suppressed by the so-called feudal rulers, and only the morbid and abnormal economic development can not lead to capitalism. That's enough. The most explicit performance in this respect is probably Wang. His "General History of China" is very lively, but it can be seen that he has few thoughts of his own. He mostly cut a fragment from the point of view of others in the East and a fragment from the West, and then pieced it together into pieces, adding his own compassion, so this is an academic work. It's a pity that he seems to eat other people's things alive and didn't digest them clearly, so it's obvious that he is inconsistent and incoherent. I won't comment in detail here. Let's take a look at his words first. Both Shang Yang and Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty stood on the position of "nationalism" in Qiang Bing, a rich country, and put forward the policy of "emphasizing capital and restraining the end", which was later called "emphasizing agriculture and restraining commerce". After the Qin dynasty, it has been the basic national policy of the unified empire for more than two thousand years. Protecting the small-scale peasant economy, restraining the commodity economy and the official operation of handicraft industry have become the basic pattern and development trend of China's traditional economic structure. What needs special attention is that ... while cracking down on private industry and commerce, the government has also strengthened its direct control over industry and commerce, and implemented state-run or monopoly to increase national finance. Subsequently, Changhua Chen wrote the article "Query on Restraining Businessmen-Also on the Ancient Tax System of China", and made a detailed textual research and analysis on the historical facts of "Restraining Businessmen" and "Emphasizing Businessmen" in different backgrounds and forms since the pre-Qin period. He concluded that, in fact, all the rulers of China in the past dynasties paid attention to business, and the combination of government and business emphasized business rather than restraining it. The exposure of both sides to the suppression of business and the combination of government and business coincides with mine. "[29] In front, the China tradition was the old view of emphasizing agriculture and restraining business, and then it suddenly turned to Changhua Chen's view without transition. It is ridiculous to distort other people's views in this way. I estimate that he may not have finished reading Changhua Chen's article at all. He only read the first part, and then he was complacent. In fact, in Changhua Chen, business is business-oriented, and there is no problem of exposing the combination of government and business. Moreover, Changhua Chen only regards commerce as one of the manifestations of the supremacy of commerce. He didn't expect China to be like this all through the ages. On the contrary, he explicitly said that "since the Southern Song Dynasty, the ruling class has rarely suppressed private commercial capital" and took it as evidence of mercantilism. I'm afraid the so-called coincidence that Wang is here can only be said to be caused by himself. Even if China's so-called restraining business is really understood as restraining private business and supporting official business, his views are quite different from Wang's. In Lin Yuan's view, there is not much connection between China's social stagnation or development and China's suppression of business. He said, "Some people associate many phenomena in the history of China with the ancient' suppression of business', and think that the long-term stagnation of ancient China society, the late rise of capitalism and even the long-term persistence of authoritarian political system are closely related to this. Even if according to some people's point of view, we regard "business suppression" as "business suppression", then, without "business suppression", wouldn't these phenomena happen? History cannot be assumed, and answering this question will inevitably become unfounded. But we can put it another way: does business have such magical power that it can unconditionally promote social development and inevitably move towards capitalism or even democracy? The answer may not be. " [27] Even the independent development of private commercial capital itself is a manifestation of social backwardness, not progress. He quoted Marx as saying that "the independent development of merchant capital is inversely proportional to the general economic development of society". Lin Yuan also said, "Because the" suppression of business "in ancient China was only" suppression of private business ",it was not" suppression of business ",but the state seized commercial interests from private businesses, so the opinions on whether the" suppression of business "policy was reasonable became a day's difference. From the perspective of social production, it has no fundamental influence on the exchange of a certain link in production realization, so it has no fundamental influence on the realization of social production in ancient China. From the perspective of social relations of production, it is because China's ancient commerce has nothing to do with advanced modes of production and has no realistic or potential capitalist nature. It is only an organic part of China's ancient social and economic structure. Therefore,' suppressing business' or' not suppressing business' did not have much impact on the changes in the ancient social and economic structure of China. " [27] The so-called "China's ancient commerce is not associated with advanced modes of production, and it does not have realistic or potential capitalist nature", which is of course wrong, but he obviously did not collude with officials and businessmen like Wang, taking the country's commercial interests from private commerce as an evil and decisive factor hindering social progress and development. This is commendable. In fact, as he said, business is not so magical. China finally fell into the abyss of stagnation and backwardness, and should look elsewhere. What is to blame for this? The suppression of private enterprises by the state is just the opposite. 6. Answer comprehensively whether China valued agriculture or commerce in ancient times. Here we can try to finally answer whether China paid attention to agriculture or commerce in ancient times. Wang and others said that China's strict control of business and collusion between officials and businessmen led to no room for private business development. To what extent is this true? According to the western concept of attaching importance to agriculture and restraining business, China has been pursuing the policy of attaching importance to agriculture in most historical periods, that is, first, attaching importance to the development of agriculture; Second, the state adopts a laissez-faire economic policy without excessive intervention and control over economic operation. We can only adopt a mercantilist policy in a short time, attach great importance to commerce in theory, and strengthen the state's control over the economy. According to the traditional understanding of China's academic circles, most of China's time is concentrated on commerce and agriculture, a little time is concentrated on commerce and agriculture, and a little time is concentrated on agriculture and commerce. As for the view that the state's tight control over the economy is regarded as the mainstream of China's history, it is groundless and cannot stand the test and debate. During the period of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, Sang Hongyang's policies can indeed be regarded as the state's tight control over the economy, but these policies are more wartime economic policies formulated for the needs of war than long-term ones. Even western capitalist countries, once in a state of war, will strengthen state control over commerce and economy, which is almost inevitable. It is not absurd to regard this as the mainstream of China's history. We can look at it from two aspects. Some policies, such as "remonstrance", are extreme cases in the history of China, and it is almost impossible to find similar things in the future (perhaps Zhu Yuanzhang's punishment of corruption is similar), and he once admitted this. Regardless of the facts, some commentators will list this incident of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty without thinking, and then say that this policy has been continued in subsequent dynasties. It can be said that it is completely nonsense that deviates from the facts. Some other policies, such as salt and iron monopoly, have indeed been inherited by later generations, but it is totally inappropriate to overestimate the impact of these policies on the whole national economy. First of all, as a country, it must have some control over the economy, otherwise the country cannot exist at all. Therefore, it is reasonable and understandable to implement the state-owned monopoly policy in some production fields. In fact, any country must have a certain proportion of its economy controlled by the state, even western capitalist countries are no exception. The state completely abandons its control over the economy and can only bring its own destruction. Some people saw that the economic control of ancient China countries was really tense. To some extent, the control of China ancient countries on economy was quite light. Needless to say, economic fields that are not stipulated by laws and regulations, even those that should be controlled by the government as stipulated by the state, are often not in place. In fact, as Chen Zhiping said, "... the central finance can't stand a little trouble, and it will soon make ends meet." Looking at the Song and Ming Dynasties, the expenditure of state finance on social welfare was not prominent, but when some local wars occurred, the crisis of state finance immediately appeared. This financial dilemma is extremely incompatible with a centralized country with a large population and vast territory. The centralized system in China feudal society, especially in the later period of China feudal society, could not actually implement effective autocracy on the national "economy". [30] This financial dilemma itself shows that the state's control over the economy is quite light. Take the Ming dynasty as an example, the state's control over private industry and commerce can be said to be almost zero. So generally speaking, most of the time, China attaches importance to agriculture but does not restrain commerce. Although we attach importance to agriculture, business is not constrained, and private industry and commerce have always had room for full development. In theory, there has always been a tendency to despise business, but in fact this is an ideological rebound caused by the development of business and the shrinking of agriculture. Because China's physiocracy schools in the past dynasties often advocated that the state should not control and interfere in the economy, the development of private business was rarely restrained. On the contrary, as Wang quoted Sun Daren's point of view, "from the point of view of modern economic science, with the rise of small-scale peasant economy, commodity economy will inevitably rise rapidly;" The development of commodity economy in turn promotes the decomposition of small-scale peasant economy, resulting in the deepening of the opposition between the rich and the poor. " [29] In China, the influence of attaching importance to agriculture for many years has led to the high development of commerce, while agriculture tends to shrink relatively with the extension of a dynasty's rule. This is the real situation. The issue of attaching importance to agriculture and restraining commerce involves the Ming Dynasty and needs to be discussed in detail. Let's put it here first. Because most people focus on the budding capitalism after the Ming Dynasty, and our focus is also in the Ming Dynasty, so the so-called issues of emphasizing agriculture and suppressing superstructure in the Ming Dynasty are discussed in detail, mainly including the maritime ban, mining tax, bureaucratic hierarchy and the nature of commodity economy, which will not be discussed in detail here.