Can anyone explain Chinese Legalism? From how I heard it described

i think most criticisms allege that this system stifles creativity and promotes mindless conformity

i cannot speak for the accuracy of those claims or lack thereof

Didn't he basically create legalism for max militarism of Qin? It's as rigid and unimaginative as it's effective.

>>2892456
Yeah, apparently his administration and Legalism was hated so badly that his empire lasted about 15 years before promptly collapsing under the weight of mass revolts and all subsequent governments had to govern according to Confucianism instead because everyone hated legalism?

>>2892444
But how does rule of law promote mindless conformity?

File: Qin Shi Huangdi.jpg (145KB, 321x406px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 321x406px

>>2892473>>2892456
>Yeah, apparently his administration and Legalism was hated so badly that his empire lasted about 15 years before promptly collapsing under the weight of mass revolts and all subsequent governments had to govern according to Confucianism instead because everyone hated legalism?
Memes.

This is literally the only conspiracy-theory I believe in history: the Qin Dynasty was blackmailed as the Qin was ousted because of mad feudalcucks.

Seriously, how could a regime who did the following:
>1) Opened the bureaucracy to the commons and instituted meritocracy.
>2) Ended slavery.
>3) Knocked down the power of the nobility.
Be unpopular to the masses?

Oh yeah, it was toppled by survivors of the Warring States' royalty/nobility that he disenfranchised. Except tough tits to them, the peasant turned Emperor, Liu Bang, thought some of the Qin's ideas was worth continuing, particularly that bit about meritocracy and not bothering to fully restore the privileges of the noblity.

>>2892473
>emphasizing obedience to strict laws isn't promoting conformity
>limiting private opinion and liberties doesn't limit innovative thought

>>2892515
>Be unpopular to the masses?
Maybe because the punishment for being late to work was to work yourself to death building the emperor's stupid mercury tomb.

>>2892530
>Working yourself to death
Further Feudalcuck memes, lmao.

Corvee labor and penal labor were done regularly even in the old kingdoms. It was nothing special that the Qin did so as well.

Furthermore, they were tasked mostly in making public infrastructure: roads, walls, you name it. The work done in his stupid mercury tomb was pretty skilled, no cunt remiss on his taxes nor petty thief would be task to anything but foundation laying, heavy lifting, or materials gathering.

As for the remains of workers found there, no shit, the project lasted for years that a massive worker/artisan army was permanently encamped outside Xian. Accidents, disease, and other dangers wouldve taken many in the years, especially in these medically primitive times.

>>2892436
Legalism is the effective method of ruling a country/empire. Through proper laws and meritocratic bureaucrats instead of nepotism, which breeds incompetence and corruption.

The Chinese tried really hard in making sure meritocratic system was working properly.

>>2892558
>*Xi'an

>>2892436
>What am I missing?
Pragmatism hurts the feefees of moralfags.
Legalism is thought badly of for the same reasons why Machiavelli is.

>>2892580
Chang'an if we want to be autistic.

>>2892611
Wouldn't it be Xianyang rather?

>>2892623
Touche.

>>2892579
How do you have both an open meritocracy and a hereditary absolute monarchy?

File: IMG_7241.JPG-e1334154120468.jpg (21KB, 300x209px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x209px

>>2892640
Chang'an was constructed by Liu Bang near the ruins of Xianyang (which Xiang Yu destroyed) but not at the site itself. So no, they are not the same thing.

>>2892515
>>2892558
>Qinz dindu nuffin! They wuz gud boyz tryn' to benefit Tianxia and shiet!!!!11
Why were the Legalist officials so foolish as to neglect consolidation? The government did have the right to summon labor, but, like the Sui Dynasty, it did too much in too little time with a land exhausted by centuries of warfare. Combined with this, the chronic backstabbing between the ministers, retardation of the successors of the First Emperor, along with overexertion in domestic projects and foreign adventures were just an invitation for disaster.
>da reactionary Confucians are puttin' the Legalist man down mang!
If the Confucians, who were indeed powerful, were so sympathetic to feudalism (as you seem to imply), why didn't/couldn't they prevent the defeat of the Rebellion of the Seven States? If Legalists were the sole antidote to feudalism, why was the Han government apparatus increasingly centralized even as Confucian canon consolidated more and more at the expense of Legalism? To its credit, Legalism has good points but the ideological influence of meritocracy for government positions was not exclusively sourced to it (Confucianism and Mohism) and thus cannot be solely credited with encouraging the process of consolidating centralization.

>>2892690
Open meritocracy for government officials. Hereditary monarch for top leadership.

The monarch decides the ultimate fate, however the officials decide the fate of everyday life's work.

>>2892690
In Chinese legend, there was an ancient time where kings were decided by individual merit, but everyone eventually deemed the decision process to be too chaotic and treacherous (sort of like how the Romans saw tons of civil wars due to the instability of the process to decide leaders). Therefore, they started to rule along the lines of dynasties.
In a sense, Chinese monarchies did follow meritocracy. If the dynasty/ruling family failed to rule competently and scrupulously, as they seem to always eventually do, it was expected that they would fall and a more capable line take the lead. So there was a sort of meritocracy in all levels of government. For officials, there was meritocracy even in the Western sense. For rulers there was meritocracy based on family instead of individuals. Granted, talents may be rather variable in this situation but the Chinese were first and foremost concerned with harmony and preventing rebels and usurpers from screwing with the system. Furthermore, dynasties have supplemented hereditary succession with heavy attention towards training, education, and introductory political experience for crown princes.
Also, Chinese rulers sometimes abdicated if they felt they were not competent enough to rule in favor of imperial relatives, modeling after the example of Yao and Shun.
Source: One of my professors and the various writings about the Pre-Shang period.

>>2892767
Even for ultimate decisions, Chinese culture pressured rulers to consult with ministers substantially when attempting to reach a decision. Capable ministers were highly lauded (Guan Zhong, Su Qin, Jiang Ziya, etc).

>>2892767
The monarch depends on officials for information, which they can skew to a degree and get away with. Nepotism is important to ensure everyone shares the same goals.

>>2892780
>If the dynasty/ruling family failed to rule competently and scrupulously (...) it was expected that they would fall and a more capable line take the lead
Shitty leaders getting ousted and replaced is a natural process worldwide though. Even the Romans were ousting dynasties when they turned to crap like Nero getting kicked out ending the Julio-Claudians and Commodus getting kicked out ending the Antonines.

>and the various writings about Pre-Shang Period
So Gilgamesh-tier fantasy then?

>>2892810
True, dynasties have come and went all over the world. I have nascent ideas on how to respond to your questions involving the importance of Li (禮), Chinese cosmology, and the emperor's role as the supreme lord of the world as Son of Heaven. However, I don't think I have researched enough yet.

>So Gilgamesh-tier fantasy then?
Say what you want, but these accounts have been highly influential for over millennia. Whether or not you believe them, they have been taken very seriously by Chinese.

>>2892866
>they have been taken very seriously by the Chinese
Possibly too seriously, given how quick they were to declare the Erlitou culture to be the Xia dynasty despite no real evidence for such a connection.

>>2892595
Machiavelli never got to be in charge of reforming a state in his own ideals. Shang Yang did.

>>2893552
>what is the florentine republic
Machiavelli was for all intents and purposes a head of state for 14 years.

>>2892810

>implying collective fantasies aren't the fabric of a people's morality and customs

>>2892931
Since the Xia predates the invention of writing, such evidence may never be found.

>>2892473
It was standardization of practices and products to an autistic level. Imagine getting brutally beaten by burly soldiers because your cart axle is one handsbreadth longer than the standard.

>>2892515
>Be unpopular to the masses?

>Show up an hour late to work because your father has dysentery and you stayed up all night taking care of him
>To the salt mines with you. No excuses you're lazy and must be punished for your insolence
>Show up an hour early for work, because you've got a lot to get through and you want to make it home in time to care for your father, who has dysentery.
>To the salt mines with you. You must be cheating somehow no excuses you're a thief and must be punished for your insolence.

That's legalism in a nutshell.

>>2896049
Well that's not a problem with legalism, it's a problem with who is setting the laws.

>>2892436
The Qin emperor was autistically obsessed with harsh punishment. The revolt that brought down the Qin dynasty was started by some soldiers who were delayed by bad luck and faced the death penalty for being late, so they thought "eh if we're going to die for being late anyway may as well all the way and rebel even if we die"