Why is it said that China from the Qin Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty cannot be considered a true "feudal society"? Because in the strict sense, "feudalism" refers to a system similar to the vassalage system of the Zhou Dynasty or medieval Europe, where power is decentralized, land and social status are hereditary, and various levels of lords have relatively independent fiscal, military, and governance rights; after Emperor Qin Shi Huang "abolished feudalism and established commanderies and counties," China actually entered a highly centralized bureaucratic system: local officials were appointed and regularly transferred by the central government, their authority derived from the emperor, and they only answered to the emperor, rather than being rooted locally and managing their territories across generations. These two systems operate on fundamentally different logics: the former relies on a decentralized structure and relatively stable contractual relationships, with governance having certain long-term constraints; the latter depends on centralization and administrative orders, emphasizing accountability to higher authorities and short-term achievements. Therefore, simply classifying China from the Qin to the Qing as a "feudal society" blurs the essential differences between these systems and can obscure their impacts on social stability, power operation, and even the path of historical development.