我的征尘是星辰大海。。。

The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...

-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆

作者:黄教授

手机视频列表

统一是正朔分裂是偏安从太平年到宝岛回归

视频

音频

原始脚本

大势不可逆，从封建论、毛郭诗辨到吴越归宋与当代治理迭代，驻足浙江博物馆天下同宁太平年相关展陈。
回望五代吴越国纳土归宋的千年往事，再对照柳宗元封建论的千古史实，毛泽东与郭沫若的诗词辩争，最后落至新中国成立之初的治理格局迭代。
忽然读懂了中国数千年政治文明最核心的底层逻辑。
分封割据是乱世的惯性，中央集权是历史的大势，地方自治是时局的权宜。
天下一统是文明的必然。
中国历史始终在分权割据与集权一统的博弈中演进。
所有的盛世太平终究都是顺应大势，摒弃分裂。
回归规整的结果。
这场跨越千年的思想与制度博弈，最早的理论定论藏在柳宗元的封建论中。
自古世人评判历史。
多以道德褒贬人物，以善恶定论朝代。
唯独柳宗元跳出了世俗史观，提出了振古烁今的核心论断，封建非圣人之意也。
是也。
分封制从不是上古圣王的理想知识模板，而是原始部落格局、权力分散局势下的被动产物。
而郡县制取代分封制不是帝王的个人偏好，而是社会发展疆域扩大、民生安定的必然趋势。
他最清醒的辨析，彻底颠覆了千年偏见。
秦之亡，失在于政，不在于制。
秦朝二世而亡，败于严刑峻法、苛政扰民的施政过失，绝非废分封、立郡县的制度之错。
周代推崇分封世袭，诸侯自治，最终落得尾大不掉，列国混战，礼崩乐坏。
秦汉之后百代王朝，无论治乱兴衰。
始终沿用秦代郡县中央集权的核心框架。
百代都行秦政法，这便是制度大势最有力的证明。
分封制的本质是权力世袭、地方割据、利益私化。
天然孕育分裂与战乱。
郡县制的本质是中央统辖，选贤任能，天下为公，天然指向统一与安定。
也正因这套通透的唯物史观，才有了1973年毛泽东读封建论呈郭老的诗词辩争。
这场诗词往来从来不是单纯的文人论史。
而是两种史观、两种治理逻辑的深度对撞。
郭沫若时批判书承习传统儒家史观，尊孔崇周，贬斥始皇。
推崇周代分封的王道理想，诟病秦制的集权变革，陷入了重道德轻大事的历史误区。
故而诗中直言劝诫。
劝君少骂秦始皇，焚坑事业要商量。
祖龙魂死业犹在，孔学名高实秕糠。
秦始皇或许有暴政之事。
但他开创的大一统郡县体系、中央集权格局，终结了春秋战国数百年的分裂割据，奠定了中国疆域与制度的根基。
反观过度推崇的古儒王道。
空谈仁义却无解乱世故一统的实操价值。
全诗收尾落点掷地有声，熟读唐人封建论，莫从子后反。
文王读懂柳宗元的史实，便不会逆流而动，向往分封割据的旧时代。
而郭沫若次年所作春雷一诗以时批大错明如火，柳论高瞻灿若珠主动呼应，既是时代语境下的表态，更是对历史大势的认可。
分封复古是倒退。
集权一统是正道。
这套跨越千年的制度逻辑，在五代吴越国的历史抉择中得到了最温柔也最通透的现实印证，也是天下同宁、太平盛世的真正内核。
五代十国是唐末分封割据的延续，天下四分五裂，各路诸侯划地为王，皆是乱世分封惯性的产物。
钱氏家族创立的吴越国。
坐拥江南富庶之地，历经三代经营，72年割据，占据两浙十三州八十六县，百姓安居，经济繁荣。
完全有割据自立与北宋对峙的资本。
但钱俶最终选择纳土归宋，和平一统，不战而降，不割据自守，以55万户百姓11万将士，整片江南沃土，归附中原大一统格局。
太平年剧集所演绎的，正是这场最具东方智慧的统一抉择。
这不是懦弱臣服，而是对历史大势的敬畏。
不是放弃基业，而是不忍以一邦之名，久陷涂炭的为民担当。
吴越国的存续是乱世割据权宜的结果。
而纳土归宋是盛世一统大势的必然，它完美印证了封建论的核心思想，分裂只是时局所致，统一才是万古不变的天道。
钱氏放弃家族世袭的割据特权，摒弃了分封制、思天下、守一方的旧思维，顺应北宋一统中原的时代潮流，以和平方式完成了从地方割据到中央统辖的转型。
保全了江南繁华，安定了万民生计，让江浙沃土避开战火浩劫，为后世长三角千年繁荣奠定了根基。
所谓太平年。
从不是割据一方的偏安安稳，而是天下归一的长治久安。
这正是浙江博物馆天下同宁展陈想要传递的千年深意。
读懂了古史的分封与郡县博弈，便能真正看懂新中国成立之初那场隐秘且深刻的治理格局迭代。
这是古代制度逻辑在现代中国的延续与升华。
建国之初，百废待兴，疆域辽阔，百业待举，全国并没有成熟的常态化行政治理体系。
特殊的革命战争局势造就了特殊的军政一体、属地经略格局，形似古时分封，实则是战时权宜的军区治理模式，绝非旧世世袭分封。
刘伯承、邓小平长期征战西南，扎根川渝云贵，经略大西南。
叶飞等闽籍将帅深耕福建，稳固东南海防。
广西、西北、华北各地，皆是革命将领熟人、属地、民情，执掌军政、安定一方。
这种格局是战争年代的必然选择。
军政合一才能快速稳固政权，肃清匪患，安抚民生。
本地人、老革命者镇守一方，熟悉风土，深得民心，高效治乱。
但这种模式天然带有属地化、军政化、权责固化的特征，是特殊时期的战时割据权宜，与古代分封制、地方自治、权力固化有着相似的治理隐患。
因此，新中国成立后的数十年治理建设，本质上就是一场从战时军区分权到现代郡县集权的制度革新，逐步剥离军政一体的治理模式。
实现军队职业化、行政规范化、治理法治化，废除属地固化的权力格局，建立中央统一领导、地方分级治理的现代行政体系。
褪去旧是军政割据的惯性，打破地域权责的固化壁垒，摒弃一方诸侯、属地自治的旧格局，构建全国统一、政令畅通、上下贯通的现代化治理体系。
这正是新时代的废分封、行郡县。
古代郡县制终结了封建世袭分裂，现代治理迭代。
终结了战时军政割据。
二者内核高度一致，弱化地方私权，强化一统格局，摒弃乱世权宜，坚守长治大势。
放眼至今，当年解放战争尚未彻底收官，特殊战局造就宝岛暂时孤悬海外的局面，本质同样是战乱遗留下来的临时分裂状态。
和当年吴越国身处五代乱世、割据两浙的成因如出一辙。
也正因如此，这博天下同宁与太平年展具的深层用意。
更具备跨越古今的现实参照。
吴越当年凭借江南富庶、一方治理成就，尚且没有把一隅繁荣当做抗拒大一统的借口。
最终选择顺势归宋，成全万家安宁。
放到当下更应明晰，一地民生富足，局部发展繁荣，从来不能成为背离国家统一、固守分裂格局的托词。
从周代诸侯割据，五代列国分立，到建国初期战时军政权宜，如今岛屿暂时分离。
所有局部割据皆是时局催生的短暂形态。
华夏数千年一脉相承的大一统，才是文明不变争朔。
纵观千年脉络，从柳宗元的史论定调，到毛郭的诗辨明道。
从吴越归宋的太平抉择，到当代中国的治理迭代，终能窥见中华文明的不变天道。
所有割据与分权都是乱世的被动权宜，所有一统与规整都是盛世的主动必然。
历史从不偏爱割据的安稳，只敬畏一统的大势。
所谓太平，从来不是一隅偏安、一方自治，而是天下归一、制度规整、万民同安。
读懂分封与郡县的千年博弈，便读懂了中国的历史底色、治理逻辑与盛世真谛。
顺势而为，方能长治久安，天下一统。
方得万世太平。

修正脚本

大势不可逆，从封建论、毛郭诗辨到吴越归宋与当代治理迭代，驻足浙江博物馆天下同宁太平年相关展陈。
回望五代吴越国纳土归宋的千年往事，再对照柳宗元封建论的千古史实，毛泽东与郭沫若的诗词辩争，最后落至新中国成立之初的治理格局迭代。
忽然读懂了中国数千年政治文明最核心的底层逻辑。
分封割据是乱世的惯性，中央集权是历史的大势，地方自治是时局的权宜。
天下一统是文明的必然。
中国历史始终在分权割据与集权一统的博弈中演进。
所有的盛世太平终究都是顺应大势，摒弃分裂。
回归规整的结果。
这场跨越千年的思想与制度博弈，最早的理论定论藏在柳宗元的封建论中。
自古世人评判历史。
多以道德褒贬人物，以善恶定论朝代。
唯独柳宗元跳出了世俗史观，提出了震古烁今的核心论断，封建非圣人之意也，势也。
分封制从不是上古圣王的理想制度模板，而是原始部落格局、权力分散局势下的被动产物。
而郡县制取代分封制不是帝王的个人偏好，而是社会发展疆域扩大、民生安定的必然趋势。
他最清醒的辨析，彻底颠覆了千年偏见。
秦之亡，失在于政，不在于制。
秦朝二世而亡，败于严刑峻法、苛政扰民的施政过失，绝非废分封、立郡县的制度之错。
周代推崇分封世袭，诸侯自治，最终落得尾大不掉，列国混战，礼崩乐坏。
秦汉之后百代王朝，无论治乱兴衰。
始终沿用秦代郡县中央集权的核心框架。
百代都行秦政法，这便是制度大势最有力的证明。
分封制的本质是权力世袭、地方割据、利益私化。
天然孕育分裂与战乱。
郡县制的本质是中央统辖，选贤任能，天下为公，天然指向统一与安定。
也正因这套通透的唯物史观，才有了1973年毛泽东读封建论呈郭老的诗词辩争。
这场诗词往来从来不是单纯的文人论史。
而是两种史观、两种治理逻辑的深度对撞。
郭沫若十批判书承习传统儒家史观，尊孔崇周，贬斥始皇。
推崇周代分封的王道理想，诟病秦制的集权变革，陷入了重道德轻大势的历史误区。
故而诗中直言劝诫。
劝君少骂秦始皇，焚坑事业要商量。
祖龙魂死业犹在，孔学名高实秕糠。
秦始皇或许有暴政之事。
但他开创的大一统郡县体系、中央集权格局，终结了春秋战国数百年的分裂割据，奠定了中国疆域与制度的根基。
反观过度推崇的古儒王道。
空谈仁义却无解乱世成一统的实操价值。
全诗收尾落点掷地有声，熟读唐人封建论，莫从子厚返文王。
读懂柳宗元的史实，便不会逆流而动，向往分封割据的旧时代。
而郭沫若次年所作春雷一诗以昔批大错明如火，柳论高瞻灿若珠主动呼应，既是时代语境下的表态，更是对历史大势的认可。
分封复古是倒退。
集权一统是正道。
这套跨越千年的制度逻辑，在五代吴越国的历史抉择中得到了最温柔也最通透的现实印证，也是天下同宁、太平盛世的真正内核。
五代十国是唐末分封割据的延续，天下四分五裂，各路诸侯划地为王，皆是乱世分封惯性的产物。
钱氏家族创立的吴越国。
坐拥江南富庶之地，历经三代经营，72年割据，占据两浙十三州八十六县，百姓安居，经济繁荣。
完全有割据自立与北宋对峙的资本。
但钱俶最终选择纳土归宋，和平一统，不战而降，不割据自守，以55万户百姓11万将士，整片江南沃土，归附中原大一统格局。
太平年剧集所演绎的，正是这场最具东方智慧的统一抉择。
这不是懦弱臣服，而是对历史大势的敬畏。
不是放弃基业，而是不忍以一邦之名，久陷涂炭的为民担当。
吴越国的存续是乱世割据权宜的结果。
而纳土归宋是盛世一统大势的必然，它完美印证了封建论的核心思想，分裂只是时局所致，统一才是万古不变的天道。
钱氏放弃家族世袭的割据特权，摒弃了分封制私天下、守一方的旧思维，顺应北宋一统中原的时代潮流，以和平方式完成了从地方割据到中央统辖的转型。
保全了江南繁华，安定了万民生计，让江浙沃土避开战火浩劫，为后世长三角千年繁荣奠定了根基。
所谓太平年。
从不是割据一方的偏安安稳，而是天下归一的长治久安。
这正是浙江博物馆天下同宁展陈想要传递的千年深意。
读懂了古史的分封与郡县博弈，便能真正看懂新中国成立之初那场隐秘且深刻的治理格局迭代。
这是古代制度逻辑在现代中国的延续与升华。
建国之初，百废待兴，疆域辽阔，百业待举，全国并没有成熟的常态化行政治理体系。
特殊的革命战争局势造就了特殊的军政一体、属地经略格局，形似古时分封，实则是战时权宜的军区治理模式，绝非旧世世袭分封。
刘伯承、邓小平长期征战西南，扎根川渝云贵，经略大西南。
叶飞等闽籍将帅深耕福建，稳固东南海防。
广西、西北、华北各地，皆是革命将领熟稔属地民情，执掌军政、安定一方。
这种格局是战争年代的必然选择。
军政合一才能快速稳固政权，肃清匪患，安抚民生。
本地人、老革命者镇守一方，熟悉风土，深得民心，高效治乱。
但这种模式天然带有属地化、军政化、权责固化的特征，是特殊时期的战时割据权宜，与古代分封制、地方自治、权力固化有着相似的治理隐患。
因此，新中国成立后的数十年治理建设，本质上就是一场从战时军区分权到现代郡县集权的制度革新，逐步剥离军政一体的治理模式。
实现军队职业化、行政规范化、治理法治化，废除属地固化的权力格局，建立中央统一领导、地方分级治理的现代行政体系。
褪去旧时军政割据的惯性，打破地域权责的固化壁垒，摒弃一方诸侯、属地自治的旧格局，构建全国统一、政令畅通、上下贯通的现代化治理体系。
这正是新时代的废分封、行郡县。
古代郡县制终结了封建世袭分裂，现代治理迭代。
终结了战时军政割据。
二者内核高度一致，弱化地方私权，强化一统格局，摒弃乱世权宜，坚守长治大势。
放眼至今，当年解放战争尚未彻底收官，特殊战局造就宝岛暂时孤悬海外的局面，本质同样是战乱遗留下来的临时分裂状态。
和当年吴越国身处五代乱世、割据两浙的成因如出一辙。
也正因如此，浙博天下同宁与太平年展陈的深层用意。
更具备跨越古今的现实参照。
吴越当年凭借江南富庶、一方治理成就，尚且没有把一隅繁荣当做抗拒大一统的借口。
最终选择顺势归宋，成全万家安宁。
放到当下更应明晰，一地民生富足，局部发展繁荣，从来不能成为背离国家统一、固守分裂格局的托词。
从周代诸侯割据，五代列国分立，到建国初期战时军政权宜，如今岛屿暂时分离。
所有局部割据皆是时局催生的短暂形态。
华夏数千年一脉相承的大一统，才是文明不变正朔。
纵观千年脉络，从柳宗元的史论定调，到毛郭的诗辨明道。
从吴越归宋的太平抉择，到当代中国的治理迭代，终能窥见中华文明的不变天道。
所有割据与分权都是乱世的被动权宜，所有一统与规整都是盛世的主动必然。
历史从不偏爱割据的安稳，只敬畏一统的大势。
所谓太平，从来不是一隅偏安、一方自治，而是天下归一、制度规整、万民同安。
读懂分封与郡县的千年博弈，便读懂了中国的历史底色、治理逻辑与盛世真谛。
顺势而为，方能长治久安，天下一统。
方得万世太平。

英文翻译

The general trend of history is irreversible. From *On Fengjian* (On Enfeoffment), the poetic debate between Mao Zedong and Guo Moruo, to the incorporation of Wuyue into the Song Dynasty and the iteration of contemporary governance, we pause at the relevant exhibitions themed "Peace Shared by All, Years of Prosperity" at Zhejiang Provincial Museum.

Looking back at the millennium-old history of the Wuyue Kingdom of the Five Dynasties surrendering its territory to the Song Dynasty, comparing it with the eternal historical facts recorded in Liu Zongyuan's *On Fengjian*, and the poetic debate between Mao Zedong and Guo Moruo, we finally arrive at the iteration of China's governance structure shortly after the founding of the People's Republic of China.

Suddenly we understand the core underlying logic of thousands of years of Chinese political civilization.
Separatist rule by enfeoffment is the inertia of troubled times, centralization is the general trend of history, and local autonomy is an expedient measure for the current situation.
Unification of the whole nation is the inevitable outcome of civilization.
Chinese history has always evolved through the game between separatist decentralization and centralized unification.
All prosperous times and peace are ultimately the result of following the general trend, abandoning division, and returning to unified order.

This millennium-spanning game of thought and system has its earliest theoretical conclusion hidden in Liu Zongyuan's *On Fengjian*.
Since ancient times, when people judge history, they mostly evaluate figures by morality and label dynasties by good and evil.
Only Liu Zongyuan stepped out of the secular view of history and put forward a shocking core assertion: "The enfeoffment system was not created by the will of sages, but by the trend of the times."
The enfeoffment system was never the ideal institutional template of ancient sage-kings, but a passive product under the pattern of primitive tribes and the situation of scattered power.
The replacement of the enfeoffment system by the prefecture-county system is not the personal preference of emperors, but an inevitable trend of social development, territorial expansion and people's livelihood security.
His clearest analysis completely overturned thousands of years of prejudice.
"The fall of the Qin Dynasty lies in its governance, not its system."
The Qin Dynasty perished in the second generation, defeated by the policy mistakes of harsh laws and oppressive government that disturbed the people, it was by no means the fault of the system of abolishing enfeoffment and establishing prefectures and counties.
The Zhou Dynasty advocated hereditary enfeoffment and vassal self-governance, and ended up with uncontrollable vassals, warring states and the collapse of ritual order.
After the Qin and Han Dynasties, hundreds of dynasties, regardless of chaos or governance, rise or fall, have always followed the core framework of the Qin Dynasty's prefecture-county system and centralization.
"Hundreds of dynasties have followed the Qin system of governance", which is the most powerful proof of the general trend of the system.
The essence of the enfeoffment system is hereditary power, local separatism and privatization of interests, which naturally breeds division and war.
The essence of the prefecture-county system is central jurisdiction, selection of talents based on ability, and the world for the public, which naturally points to unity and stability.
It is precisely because of this transparent historical materialism that there was the poetic debate in 1973, when Mao Zedong wrote *Reading On Fengjian and Presenting to Mr. Guo* to Guo Moruo.
This poetic exchange has never been a simple discussion of history by scholars, but a deep collision between two views of history and two governance logics.

Guo Moruo's *Ten Critiques* inherited the traditional Confucian view of history, honoring Confucius and praising the Zhou Dynasty, and denouncing the First Emperor of Qin.
It advocated the kingly ideal of enfeoffment in the Zhou Dynasty, criticized the centralized reform of the Qin system, and fell into the historical misunderstanding of valuing morality over the general trend of history.
Therefore, Mao's poem directly admonished: "I advise you not to revile Emperor Qin Shihuang much, the matter of burning books and burying scholars is worth discussing. The soul of the First Emperor is dead but his cause remains, Confucianism has a high reputation but is actually just chaff."
Emperor Qin Shihuang may have committed tyranny, but the unified prefecture-county system and the centralized structure he founded ended hundreds of years of division and separatism in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and laid the foundation for China's territory and system.
In contrast, the over-praised kingly way of ancient Confucianism talks empty about benevolence and righteousness but has no practical value to end troubled times and achieve unification.
The ending of the poem is firm and powerful: "Read carefully the Tang man's *On Fengjian*, do not go back from Zihou (Liu Zongyuan's style name) to King Wen of Zhou."
If you understand the historical facts expounded by Liu Zongyuan, you will not go against the trend and yearn for the old era of separatist rule.
Guo Moruo wrote the poem *Spring Thunder* the next year, which actively responded with the line "I confessed my big mistake as bright as fire, Liu's argument is farsighted and brilliant as pearls", which is not only a statement under the context of the times, but also a recognition of the general trend of history.
Restoring enfeoffment is regression, centralized unification is the right path.

This set of institutional logic spanning a thousand years has received the most gentle and transparent practical confirmation in the historical choice of the Wuyue Kingdom of the Five Dynasties, and it is also the real core of "Peace Shared by All, a Prosperous Era".
The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms was a continuation of separatist rule after the end of the Tang Dynasty. The country was torn apart, and various vassals carved up territory and became kings, all products of the inertia of enfeoffment in troubled times.
The Wuyue Kingdom founded by the Qian family, sitting on the wealthy land of Jiangnan, after three generations of management and 72 years of separatist rule, occupied 13 prefectures and 86 counties in Liangzhe, where people lived in peace and the economy prospered.
It had full capital to separate itself and confront the Northern Song Dynasty.
But Qian Chu finally chose to surrender his territory to the Song Dynasty, achieve peaceful unification, surrender without a fight, refuse to defend the territory as a separatist, and with 550,000 households of people, 110,000 soldiers, and the entire fertile land of Jiangnan, he joined the great unification pattern of the Central Plains.
What the production *Years of Prosperity* depicts is exactly this choice of unification with the most oriental wisdom.
This is not cowardly submission, but reverence for the general trend of history.
It is not giving up the ancestral foundation, but the responsibility for the people who cannot bear to have the whole region trapped in suffering for a long time.
The existence of the Wuyue Kingdom was the result of expedient separatism in troubled times.
And surrendering to the Song Dynasty is the inevitable result of the general trend of unification for a prosperous age, which perfectly confirms the core idea of *On Fengjian*: division is only caused by the current situation, and unification is the eternal unchanging law of heaven.
The Qian family gave up the hereditary separatist privilege of the family, abandoned the old thinking of enfeoffment that the world is private to the ruling clan and only guards one's own territory, followed the trend of the times when the Northern Song Dynasty unified the Central Plains, and completed the transformation from local separatism to central jurisdiction in a peaceful way.
It preserved the prosperity of Jiangnan, stabilized the livelihood of thousands of people, spared the fertile land of Jiangsu and Zhejiang from the catastrophe of war, and laid the foundation for the millennium prosperity of the Yangtze River Delta in later generations.
The so-called peaceful years are never the partial stability of separatist rule, but the long-term peace and stability of a unified country.
This is exactly the thousand-year-old profound meaning that the "Peace Shared by All" exhibition of Zhejiang Provincial Museum wants to convey.

If you understand the millennium game between enfeoffment and the prefecture-county system, you can truly understand that hidden and profound iteration of governance structure shortly after the founding of New China.
This is the continuation and sublimation of ancient institutional logic in modern China.
Shortly after the founding of New China, everything was waiting to be rebuilt; with a vast territory, all industries were waiting to be developed, and there was no mature and normalized administrative governance system across the country.
The special situation of revolutionary war created a special pattern of integration of military and government, and regional governance. It resembles ancient enfeoffment in form, but in fact it is an expedient military region governance model in wartime, by no means the old hereditary enfeoffment.
Liu Bocheng and Deng Xiaoping fought for a long time in the southwest, took root in Sichuan, Chongqing, Yunnan and Guizhou, and governed the greater southwest.
Generals of Fujian origin such as Ye Fei deeply cultivated Fujian and stabilized the southeast coastal defense.
In Guangxi, Northwest China, North China and other places, revolutionary generals familiar with local conditions held military and political power and stabilized each region.
This pattern was an inevitable choice in the war years.
Integration of military and government could quickly stabilize political power, eliminate bandits, and improve people's livelihood.
Local veteran revolutionaries guarding one region are familiar with local conditions, win the support of the people, and restore order efficiently.
But this model naturally has the characteristics of regionalization, militarization, and solidification of power and responsibility. It is an expedient wartime separatism in a special period, and has similar hidden governance risks to the ancient enfeoffment system, local autonomy and solidified power.
Therefore, the decades of governance and construction after the founding of New China is essentially an institutional innovation from wartime military regional decentralization to modern prefecture-county style centralization, gradually stripping away the integrated military-government governance model.
It has realized professionalization of the military, standardization of administration, and legalization of governance, abolished the solidified regional power pattern, and established a modern administrative system with unified central leadership and hierarchical local governance.
It got rid of the inertia of old military-political separatism, broke the solidified barriers of regional power and responsibility, abandoned the old pattern of regional vassals and regional autonomy, and built a modern governance system with national unification, smooth government orders, and connection between higher and lower levels.
This is exactly the "abolish enfeoffment, implement prefecture-county system" in the new era.
The ancient prefecture-county system ended feudal hereditary division, and modern governance iteration ended wartime military-political separatism.
The core of the two is highly consistent: weaken local private power, strengthen the unified pattern, abandon expedient measures in troubled times, and adhere to the general trend of long-term stability.

Looking at the present, the Liberation War was not completely finished back then, and the special war situation led to the temporary separation of the treasure island from the mainland. Essentially, it is also a temporary division left over from the war.
It has exactly the same cause as the Wuyue Kingdom's separatist rule of Liangzhe in the troubled Five Dynasties.
Because of this, the deep intention behind the "Peace Shared by All" and "Years of Prosperity" exhibitions at Zhejiang Provincial Museum has greater practical reference significance spanning ancient and modern times.
Back then, Wuyue, with its wealthy Jiangnan and regional governance achievements, still did not take the prosperity of one region as an excuse to resist unification. It finally chose to follow the trend and surrender to the Song Dynasty, to secure the peace of thousands of families.
In the present, it should be even clearer that the prosperity of people's livelihood in one region and the prosperous development of a part can never be an excuse to depart from national unification and stick to a separatist pattern.
From the separatist rule of vassals in the Zhou Dynasty, the separation of various states in the Five Dynasties, to the expedient wartime military governance in the early days of the founding of New China, and the current temporary separation of the island, all regional separatism are temporary forms born of the current situation.
The great unification that has been inherited for thousands of years in Huaxia is the unchanging orthodoxy of civilization.
Looking through the thousand-year context, from Liu Zongyuan's conclusion of historical theory, to the poetic debate between Mao and Guo that clarified the principle, from the peaceful choice of Wuyue's surrender to the Song Dynasty, to the governance iteration of contemporary China, we can finally see the unchanging law of heaven of Chinese civilization.
All separatism and decentralization are passive expedients in troubled times, and all unification and order are active inevitability in prosperous times.
History never favors the stability of separatism, it only reveres the general trend of unification.
The so-called peace has never been partial peace of one region and self-governance of one place, but unification of the whole country, standardized system, and common peace of all people.
If you understand the millennium game between enfeoffment and the prefecture-county system, you will understand the historical background, governance logic and true meaning of prosperous times of China.
Only by following the trend of history can we achieve long-term stability, unification of the country, and eternal peace for generations.