Was the Ming Dynasty the peak of China's feudal period? Is the establishment of the Qing Dynasty retrogressive?

The Ming Dynasty was the peak of the feudal period to some extent, but this peak was specific. It pushed the absolute authority of imperial power to the peak, but it did not push the management system of the feudal period to the peak. In fact, the absolute imperial power of the Ming Dynasty was precisely the mistake of the management system of the Ming Dynasty, which also led to the inevitable collapse of the Ming Dynasty. It attributed all the decision-making power of government affairs to the emperor. Under this system, most Ming emperors were lazy. Officials at all levels have lost their initiative, and the management from top to bottom is extremely rigid. Empires capable of leading the world quickly fell behind other countries and were exhausted themselves. It is precisely because of this that the Qing dynasty replaced the Ming dynasty, corrected the shortcomings of the Ming dynasty to a certain extent, and decentralized management. The initiative of middle and lower officials in Qing Dynasty is much higher than that in Ming Dynasty, which can be said to be much better. Plus, imperial power is partially decentralized. The workload of the emperors was reduced, and most emperors in the Qing Dynasty showed their enthusiasm for work. However, the feudal monarchy, after all, clearly kept the political power on a family or even an emperor, which was bound to have great limitations. The downfall of the Qing empire is inevitable, and it will be overthrown by other heroes if it is not overthrown by the Republic of China. Theoretically, the seeds of capitalism may be re-developed by the replacement dynasty. However, although the Manchu regime was diligent, the social form was very backward before entering the customs. After entering the Central Plains, making up lessons in culture took up too much time. By the time the cultural gap was basically leveled, the West had completed the industrial revolution and started colonial export and military repression, which led to great backwardness in modern history. According to my conscience, the responsibility of foreign rule only accounts for 40%, while the responsibility of decadent feudal dynasty official system accounts for 60%. After all, after Qianlong, not only was the royal family sinicized thoroughly enough, but among the ruling and opposition parties, the Han ministers accounted for the vast majority, and the conservatives represented by Cixi were actually not defending the interests of foreigners, and the other was safeguarding the interests of all backward old feudal bureaucrats. The example is very simple. It is said that the Qing Dynasty betrayed the country. However, after the Revolution of 1911, Yuan Shikai and the Beiyang government were basically the same, but they were both Han Chinese with modern weapons and equipment. Why do they want to cede territory to sell the country? In fact, it is because the feudal bureaucratic class represented by Cixi, that is, the class where the Beiyang government authorities are located, has nothing to do with the nation in essence;