Historical materialism holds that what kind of state system or what kind of social system a country adopts depends in the final analysis on the country's material production level and material living standards. It will never be a social system that can be implemented by a person who wants to choose what kind of social system. The so-called is not subject to human will.

There is no doubt that it is meaningless to discuss what state system the state implements in isolation from the country's material production level and material living standards.

That is to say, for a country, what kind of national system to adopt is not whether it is superior or inferior, but which national system can adapt to its national conditions.

If we have to compare the republican system with the autocratic state, it is safe to say that the republican system is the product of a higher stage of social development.

So, what is the level of material production and material living that is compatible with feudal autocracy, and what is the material level of production and material living that is compatible with democracy and republic?

To answer this question in detail, it takes a lot of writing, which can only be summarized as follows:

The first human society was a primitive society, and most of the time of human society has been spent in this state to this day.

In this society, people mainly rely on gathering wild fruits, wild vegetables, fishing and hunting to obtain means of subsistence, and rely on the blessings of nature to survive. People in the group work together and consume together. They are as poor as animals, and nature is opposed to man as a completely alien, infinitely powerful and unconquerable force, and men are subject to its power like livestock. Production has not yet been able to create surplus, there is no savings, material production and material living standards are extremely low.

I can't tell when it began, but love of labor has become a common word used by almost all ethnic groups when praising their ancestors. But what is expressed here is nothing more than the way people understand labor today. Just as when a eulogy is given to the deceased, no matter how exaggerated the praise of the deceased, no one will hold it accountable. But to explain the problem scientifically, the conclusion can only be that the ancestors of mankind did not love labor, but only hated it.

And the further back we go back in history, the stronger the aversion to labor becomes. If this point is not clear in a primitive society where there is no surplus and people work together and distribute together in order to survive, once labor creates surplus, it becomes clear that once it is possible to earn a living and obtain the means of enjoyment through the labor of others without working.

Although there is very little material left from that era to study, it is sufficient to paint a picture of looting, as Marx put it: "There is a traditional notion that in certain periods people lived only by plundering. "Labor became a despicable act that only slaves and the inferior were worthy of.

"What can be obtained by blood, if it is obtained by sweating, it is too weak and incompetent." This sentence fully expresses the attitude of people towards labor at that time.

The Karamoja people, who now live in Uganda, still practice looting as a secondary activity. In the plunder, whoever has the greatest merit will be slashed on the left arm, and the more scars there are, the more respected they are. When the young man courted the girl, he had to repeat his exploits in the plunder.

Plunder is certainly much more affordable than labor, but what is obtained by "bloodshed" must first be created by "sweat". Human society cannot live without labor, but people hate labor, and where there is no consciousness, it is necessary to spontaneously force and open up a way for human society to move forward. In this way, a social system in which some people force others to work by barbaric and cruel means is created, which is a slave society.

The barbaric and brutal system of slavery is usually treated as a disgrace to human society. But as Engels put it: "It is easiest to denounce slavery and other similar phenomena in general terms, and to vent noble righteous indignation at these shameful phenomena." Unfortunately, this says only one thing that is well known, and that is that this ancient system is no longer suitable for our present situation and for our feelings that are determined by it. But how did this system come about, why did it exist, and what role did it play in history. We have not received any clarification on these issues. If we delve into these issues, we will say – no matter how contradictory and bizarre it may sound,—— the adoption of slavery was a great step forward under the conditions of the time. ”

Any domination, at least in its ascending phase, necessarily reflects the need for such domination, and the barbarism of the slave society is commensurate with the degree of aversion to labor.

The slave society was built on such a level of material production that labor had created a surplus and that labor had gained value, but individual labor had not yet been realized.

The main sector of production in ancient societies was agriculture, and agriculture was undoubtedly the easiest to achieve individual labor. However, due to the low labor skills of the laborers at that time, the poverty of production experience, the clumsiness, and rudimentary production tools, the use of iron tools was not widespread, and the livestock and more complex agricultural tools such as the plough were very limited and could only be used by the collective, and the individual could not undertake the main field farming.

Such a social existence determined the values of the slaves—their contempt for themselves and their inaction—that enabled them to accept and approve of the brutal servitude of their slave owners. Individual labor could only rely on the power of cooperation if it did not form productive forces, and the large estate economy of the slave owners adapted to this need.

But a slave society could only be built on the above level of material production. Although the development was very slow, with the widespread use of iron tools, the popularization of domestic animals and production tools, the improvement of labor skills of laborers, and the continuous accumulation and improvement of production knowledge and experience, individual labor was gradually realized in agriculture and handicrafts.

In this way, collective labor, which compensates for the lack of individual labor, naturally becomes obsolete. The developed level of material production has injected new values into the laborers, and the laborers are no longer interested in the kind of labor that does not bring them any benefits, and the labor of the slaves can no longer even bring benefits to the slave owners.

As Engels put it: "The economy of the large estates, based on slave labour, is no longer profitable; At the time, it was the only possible form of large-scale agriculture. Small-scale operations are now the only possible form. ”

The large estates were divided into small plots of land and rented to individual tenant farmers who paid a certain amount or a part of the product of their labor, and a new kind of production relations emerged, the feudal system.

In feudal society, the peasants, who were the direct producers, had much better production and living conditions than slaves under the slave system. Peasants can master a certain amount of means of production, obtain a certain amount of labor time and labor fruits at their disposal, and can improve their own livelihood through their own efforts. Compared with slaves, the peasants' interest and enthusiasm for labor have increased significantly.

The starting point of the slave society state was a small territory, at best a union of several tribes, while a feudal society united vast areas into kingdoms, thus further expanding the range of human interaction. It is possible to concentrate human, material, and financial resources to make large-scale investments, such as building water conservancy.

By uniting large regions in the kingdom, it will be able to provide a relatively stable living environment for the masses of the people, which will also be conducive to the development of production.

The production relations of feudal society are based on such a level of material production: individual labor has been realized, but the production of basic means of subsistence still occupies the vast majority of labor time, the rural population accounts for the vast majority of the total population, the power used in production is mainly human and animal power, and the occasional application of other natural forces such as wind power and water power is only a simple use, and there is no ability to reprocess.

This is a highly decentralized society, and it is also a society where each sweeps the snow in front of the door as the main mode of survival. In order to unite these highly dispersed families into a kingdom and form a concentration when needed, a strong power over society was needed, and a highly centralized feudal autocracy came into being.

Feudal emperors always say that "imperial power is divinely granted", how can there be any gods in this world? The secret of the feudal emperor's power was that "the whole world is not the king's land", and the land was state-owned. The peasants could not live without the land, and their dependence on the land was the personal attachment of the peasants to the feudal lords.

Under the feudal system, the highest achievement of a peasant was nothing more than struggling to freely occupy a piece of land and become a yeoman farmer through hard work. And once he freely takes possession of a piece of land, he also gains the freedom to lose it. Becoming a yeoman farmer also broke the feudal shackles on his body to a large extent. Of course, in the same way, once you break free from the shackles of feudal patriarchal relations, you will lose the protection of feudal patriarchy.

It can be seen that feudal autocracy is fundamentally incompatible with private ownership of land.

On the other hand, in feudal society, a rural family produced almost all the means of subsistence needed for its own family, which is often referred to as a self-sufficient natural economy. The exchange of small quantities of products is an isolated phenomenon.

Commodities are "naturally egalitarians" because the exchange of goods can take place normally, provided that the buyer and seller are equal.

And for a person to become an independent commodity producer or a free laborer, the premise is personal freedom. And once you talk about freedom, equality, and unequal feudal hierarchies, you have to say goodbye.

It is clear that feudal autocracy and commodity exchange are equally incompatible.

By the end of the Qing Dynasty, although the rural population still accounted for the vast majority of the country's population, private ownership of land had become quite common, and commodity production and commodity exchange had also developed and scaled.

The foundation of feudal rule has been shattered, how can the rule of the Qing court not be riddled with holes?

There is no doubt that feudal rule has largely lost its conditions of existence and become obsolete. Of course, the foundation of the democratic republic is still very weak, but in any case, society can only move forward if it wants to develop.

And the restoration of the imperial system is, to be sure, perverse, and a reversal of history.