The so-called apportionment into the mu is the abolition of the poll tax, and all tax burdens are subject to the number of acres of land. Many commentators believe that the division of the land has abolished the editorial system and weakened personal control. But I see the opposite. Because it can be extrapolated backwards from the results of its implementation.

In fact, the inhibition of land annexation by apportionment to mu does play a great role. It also enabled a large number of yeoman farmers to survive, injecting a boost to the rule of the Qing Dynasty. But we know that yeoman farmers have a great adaptability to the feudal system and a greater rejection of the more trapped mode of production. This made the peasants more firmly bound to the land, stabilized the landlord economy, strengthened the natural economic system of one household and one household, and became an obstacle to the budding development of capitalism.

Cruel as it may be, capitalist industry cannot develop if it does not turn large numbers of peasants off the land and into wage workers. A whip was a very gentle solution, especially for the populous Ming Dynasty.

Just like a progressive tax system compared to a whip law, sometimes the advanced ones are not necessarily appropriate.

As for some people saying that the gentry paid food and fire consumption in one place, it is even more unreliable, as one reader retorted. Shang Yingwang Anshi's reform does not change the imperial power, and the emperor changes the imperial power according to the silent reform, and if the emperor does not follow it, if he offends the officials again, he will not even have a little brother! It's also a P