China the first Industrialized country over 1,000 years ago? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#558632
I saw a program on the History Channel last weekend about China that really made an impression on me.

They submitted that China was the first country to develop a capitalist system, and that they did so over 1,000 years ago. This was one of the better programs I have seen on the HC, and they put fourth good facts, discussion and ideas.

It completely changed my view of history, and now the question is, is China on the verge of rewriting all known human history in a profound way?

It seems that the Chinese developed an industrialized economy based on the large scale production of iron and steel long before Europe was even close. During this time a "modern" society developed in China, with news papers, large markets, advanced culture, wage-labor, and technological advance.

However, democracy never really flourished, and this apparetly led to a delcine in Chinese society as the elite members of Chinese society became fixed on traditional ways.

China was still apparently the economic superior to Europe even in the 16 and 1700s.

However, the advantage gained by Europe via imperialism and the gold from America helped to elevate Europe and the Opium trade between Britain and China helped to bring down the advanced Chiense society in the last 1700s and early 1800s.

China faced a major collapse of civilization during the 1800s, perhaps the collapse of the most advanced cilivization in the history of the planet up to that time, and even that makes the "fall" of Rome pale in comparison.

Due to the closed Chinese culture though this was never fully understood.

Now, after 200 years, China is rediscovering its past through archeology, rewriting history and trying to regain what it sees as its historical role as the economic and technolgical leader of the world.

So, is this just Chinese propaganda, or real history here? I watched the documentary and it looked like real history to me.

Found this: http://www.cyberessays.com/History/90.htm
By Gothmog
#558742
-The History Channel is correct here. China was FAR AHEAD of the West in the 1400´s. They built a fleet that was much more powerful than those built by Western powers 100-200 years latter. That fleet included ships that were more or of less the same size of a WWII Destroyer. They "discovered" Africa with this fleet, which was commanded by Admiral Zhen He, a Muslim eunuch. Chinese decline started in mid 1400´s, but the country was still powerful in early 1800´s, and was probably the biggest economy worldwide. I think western (and then Japanese) imperialism did a lot of damage to Chinese economy (the Opium was, the unequal treaties, and so on, China became essentially a colony in all but name in the 1800´s). However, that powerful country was probably weakened by internal factors to become a so easy prey to imperialism. You must also consider that China lived a sequence of disasters in the 1800´s. There was the Taiping rebellion, the bloodiest civil war in history, there were also the two devastating famines of 1876-78 and 1896-98. Those three events may have killed up to 30-50 million people. From 1820-1949 China´s per capita GDP declined almost withouth interruption. Some recovering only happened after the Communist revolution (even before market reforms, and despite the excesses of garrison state, China´s economy was growing at 4-6%/year). For an interesting (and unconventional) approach to the causes of European supremacy in 1800´s, look at Kenneth Pommeranz (The Great Divergence). Jared Diamond (Germs, Guns and Steel) also gives us some hints on Chinese decline. He argued that interstate competition in Europe resulted in technical progress, while the Chinese technology stagnated because they had no serious challenge in their geographic area).
User avatar
By Potemkin
#558775
Yes, this is real history. Until the late 19th century, the Chinese regarded all other peoples as inferior 'barbarians', and simply didn't take them seriously. The Chinese Empire was the oldest surviving civilisation in the world, and one of the most advanced and powerful. It's problem was that it was too successful in its region and too isolated from the rest of the world. Europe, on the other hand, went from being a backwater encircled by the more sophisticated and powerful Islamic world, into an aggressively expansionist centre of several world-spanning empires within just a few hundred years from about 1500 to 1900. This was unprecedented in human history, and its not surprising it caught the Chinese on the hop. They had enjoyed 2000 years of, as they thought, undisputed rule as top dog, the world's 'Number 1' nation. All of this crumbled to dust in a few centuries in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was as colossal and traumatic an event as the Fall of Rome. A 2000 year old civilisation was invaded by the barbarian hordes from Europe and collapsed into ruin. By the late 19th century, it was effectively all over - Peking was sacked and burned by an alliance of several European powers, large swathes of territory were torn from China by 'treaties' enforced by gunboats, and the population lost faith in their traditional elites and even in the value of their own traditional culture. The result was, in the early 20th century, the disintegration of the country, the rule of the warlords, and the strong possibility of the breakup of the nation and a reversion to the 'Warring States' period. China might have ceased to exist as a nation. It was only with Mao's victory in 1949 that order was restored and the nation reintegrated under a new elite and a new political and cultural ideology (one derived, not coincidentally, from a Western model). As Mao said at the ceremony when the People's Republic was proclaimed, "China has stood up!"
By Russkie
#558777
I heard conspiracy theories that China wants to invade Siberia in Russia for its vital resources. I doubt it, since China was never imperialist in it's entire history. That's why they build the great wall as defense.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#558800
I heard conspiracy theories that China wants to invade Siberia in Russia for its vital resources. I doubt it, since China was never imperialist in it's entire history. That's why they build the great wall as defence.

I wouldn't pay much attention to those 'theories' - China knows that any such reckless adventurism would be economically and politically counterproductive. Besides, if they need oil (which they do) they are now rich enough to simply buy it. Why risk starting a costly war and possible targeting by an out-of-control America as a 'rogue state'? That would be totally inconsistent with the policies of the Chinese government for the past 25 years. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the possibility of China invading Siberia any time soon if I were you, Russkie.
By malachi151
#558996
I think that the exploitation of the Americas is what really allowed Europe to leapfrog China so quickly.
User avatar
By Attila The Nun
#559015
It also has to do with the fact that at the time China was outdated. It was being beaten horribly by powers that had been weak for so long, like Japan.
By Gothmog
#559957
I think that the exploitation of the Americas is what really allowed Europe to leapfrog China so quickly.


-This is Pommeranz´s thesis, but it lacks an explanation on why Europe and China didn´t expanded to other lands (China had clearly technology to do so). Here I will agree with Mr. Diamond, who believes that interestate competition was a major force driving European expansionism.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#559975
-This is Pommeranz´s thesis, but it lacks an explanation on why Europe and China didn´t expanded to other lands (China had clearly technology to do so). Here I will agree with Mr. Diamond, who believes that interestate competition was a major force driving European expansionism.

I agree with that idea. When Cecil Rhodes was trying to obtain the financial backing to invade the lands north of South Africa (which he eventually conquered and renamed 'Rhodesia'), he said, "If we don't do it, somebody else will!" That clinched it. The attitude was that if Britain didn't seize this land and its resources, then the French or the Portuguese or the Germans certainly would. There was an element of desperation in a lot of the expansionism of the 19th century, due to the pressure of European interstate competition. And the failure to compete within Europe could actually lead to the total collapse of your nation: the fate of Poland in the 18th century served as a terrible warning.

And Pommeranz's thesis doesn't really have any explanatory power - it shifts the question from "How did Europe leapfrog over China?" to "How did Europe manage to discover, conquer and colonise the New World?" One mystery is 'explained' with another mystery.
User avatar
By Akiva Rothschild
#560011
-This is Pommeranz´s thesis, but it lacks an explanation on why Europe and China didn´t expanded to other lands (China had clearly technology to do so). Here I will agree with Mr. Diamond, who believes that interestate competition was a major force driving European expansionism


I did an essay a while back on this topic. I concluded that the Chinese did not expand because of an inherent strain of isolationism in their society as a result of economic and geographic conditions. The competition was element to my arguemnt. China is a large, unified empire that had very little need for trade while Europe consisted of various smaller states which bred the conditions for exploration. A Greek city state has far more incentive to explore and colonise than China or Japan.
By HomogeneousSocialist
#560106
Please compare communicatory and indutrial technological acheivements between China and Europe, when it comes to industrialiazation the accomplishments in Europe far overshawdow, any accomplishments by the Chinese.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#560197
Please compare communicatory and indutrial technological acheivements between China and Europe, when it comes to industrialiazation the accomplishments in Europe far overshawdow, any accomplishments by the Chinese.

That has only been true for the past 200 years or so. Before then, for 2000 years or more, China was far more advanced than Europe. The question we're asking is, why did Europe suddenly overtake China? You're simply asserting that China was never ahead, which is clearly false.
By Gothmog
#560525
I did an essay a while back on this topic. I concluded that the Chinese did not expand because of an inherent strain of isolationism in their society as a result of economic and geographic conditions. The competition was element to my arguemnt. China is a large, unified empire that had very little need for trade while Europe consisted of various smaller states which bred the conditions for exploration. A Greek city state has far more incentive to explore and colonise than China or Japan.


-Any chance of we getting a copy of your essay??
By Russkie
#560549
That has only been true for the past 200 years or so. Before then, for 2000 years or more, China was far more advanced than Europe. The question we're asking is, why did Europe suddenly overtake China? You're simply asserting that China was never ahead, which is clearly false.


Europe overtook China because they used imperalist tactics unlike China.
China has always remainded isolationist.
By Gothmog
#560550
Europe overtook China because they used imperalist tactics unlike China.
China has always remainded isolationist.


-All of us agree on this, question is: Why China wasn´t able to offer any meaningful resistance against western barbarians (compared for instance, with Zulus and sikhs)? What factors weakened the Middle Kingdom to make it such an easy prey? You don´t need to be imperialist to resist imperialism, and the Chinese had essentially all the conditions to fight the British Army. We are not talking about a struggle between stone age warriors and late medieval ones, like in Americas. The Chinese technology was obsolete, but they could have recruited many more soldiers to make for their technological inferiority.
By Sid
#560702
Interestingly enough the Chinese were imperialistic at the time of Zheng He's voyages, and conquered the kingdom of Dai Viet (present day Vietnam). However in the face of fierce resistance they withdrew within ten years (rather than tough it out as the Europeans did).

Possibly because of this experience they turned away from imperialism, but also possibly because imperialism clashes with the principles of confucianism (China withdrew from Dai Viet at the behest of Confucian advisors). However, it would be hard to deny an element of imperialism in China's extending control over its own "wild west" and Tibet, but more of an aggressive self defence than western style imperialism (e.g. like the Russian conquest of the steppe Tatars as opposed to Britain conquering India).

As for China being easy prey to western imperialists, you would have to look at Chinese internal history, probably from the 17th century. I don't know a lot about the fall of the Ming dynasty, but essentialy it comprised of the conquest of the country by the foreign Qing (Manchu) dynasty. Clearly the later Mings had fucked up big time if their people allowed this to happen, and the country never really recovered under the new dynasty, subject to contuing rebellions such as the Tai Ping uprising.

One interesting theory on the strength of China (before the modern era) is the state of its main waterways (e.g the Grand Canal linking the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers). Basicaly without maintenance they would silt up and become unusable, thus messing up the whole economy. Then a more activist government (usualy under a new dynasty) would clear them up and the economy would revitalise, as happened under the Ming late 1300's. Under this theory western imperialism struck just as the Qing dynasty was entering decline. Not sure how true this is, but another possible theory anyhow.
By fastspawn
#561852
i think the reason china fell behind was because of ideas, or lack thereof.

There were loads of practical inventions and all that, but seemingly, perhaps because we are so euro-centric nowadays, we have not heard of a similar figure to newton or smith in china that came up with ideas, just practices and inventions.
User avatar
By The American Lion
#561881
It also has to do with the fact that at the time China was outdated. It was being beaten horribly by powers that had been weak for so long, like Japan.


Dont forget that Mongol invasions did help with the slow down of China's technological advancement.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#561891
The Black Death killed nearly half the population of Europe in the 14th century. That slowed us down a lot too. I don't think you can point to the Mongols as the main cause of China's decline.
By Crazy Brown Guy
#561897
Black Death didn't isolate Europe but Mongols camping in their door step did.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]