Industrialization, but not Democracy or Nationalism

[Basileus444]

Is it possible to have the technological developments of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions (although not necessarily as a revolution but as a slower shift) but without the social changes? Is it feasible to have industrialization but not the rise of democracy and nationalism? If so, what would be the best way to go about it?

[amphibulous]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Is it possible to have the technological developments of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions (although not necessarily as a revolution but as a slower shift) but without the social changes? Is it feasible to have industrialization but not the rise of democracy and nationalism? If so, what would be the best way to go about it?

To be fair to the egregious (not to mention genocidal) SM Stirling, I think he managed to do this - at least the "without democracy" part in the first volume of the Draka series, "Marching Through Georgia." It's an excellent read and I recommend it.

Basically:

- Educated elite does the thinking

- Slave labour is ideal for factory tasks

You get something of a hit as production becomes more sophisticated and your system is less flexible, but you make up for it with longer working days, less need for consumer goods, etc.

The "without nationalism" component is interesting - but doesn't nationalism pre-date industrialism??? The Napoleonic French, Russians and Prussians seem pretty nationalist, and they're not exactly rolling in steam engines.

[Snake Featherston]

Communism.

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

It could be possible.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Basileus444

Is it possible to have the technological developments of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions (although not necessarily as a revolution but as a slower shift) but without the social changes? Is it feasible to have industrialization but not the rise of democracy and nationalism? If so, what would be the best way to go about it?

Doesn't industrialization pretty much require a somewhat literate work-force and the packing together of an urban proletariat which makes some sort of Democracy inevitable?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by amphibulous

The Napoleonic French, Russians and Prussians seem pretty nationalist, and they're not exactly rolling in steam engines.

Tell that to Thande.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Communism.

Only if you believe that the non-statist variety of Socialism simply never exist.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

Only if you believe that the non-statist variety of Socialism simply never exist.

The reality remains that Communism happened in agrarian societies and served chiefly as a means of industrial bureaucratic state-building in societies where there was neither bureaucracy nor state. It never happened as its ideology mandated it should have happened, in any already-industrialized state. Communism was also neither democratic nor nationalistic, and thus is an OTL example that meets all requirements of this OP.

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Originally Posted by amphibulous

The "without nationalism" component is interesting - but doesn't nationalism pre-date industrialism??? The Napoleonic French, Russians and Prussians seem pretty nationalist, and they're not exactly rolling in steam engines.

No. The industrialism started in the middle of the 18th century. Nationalism began with both the American and the French Revolution. So industrialism is at least one generation older than nationalism and is not linked with it, because neither France or America was industrialized at that time and nationalism reached British Islands in the 19th century (Ireland!).

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Communism was also neither democratic nor nationalistic, and thus is an OTL example that meets all requirements of this OP.

If you want to talk about reality rather than theory than Communism pretty much turned nationalistic in every single case.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

If you want to talk about reality rather than theory than Communism pretty much turned nationalistic in every single case.

No it did not. The Communists invariably were opposed to nationalism in every single case. The Communist ideology was imperialist, to be sure, but it was a distinctly non-nationalist type of appeal. And if you're going to use Ho Chih Minh as a counterexample he was looking for any patron that would have him, and turned to Leninism solely as a means to create a strongly tied, disciplined revolutionary movement. The contrast between that and the Soviets and Maoists is a rather profound one.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by amphibulous

The "without nationalism" component is interesting - but doesn't nationalism pre-date industrialism??? The Napoleonic French, Russians and Prussians seem pretty nationalist, and they're not exactly rolling in steam engines.

I was thinking of a stable, industrialized, but still monarchial Austria-Hungary when I wrote the post, a multi-ethnic empire with a monarchy and airplanes. So I was thinking specifically of Slavic nationalism, which is more late 1800s.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

No it did not. The Communists invariably were opposed to nationalism in every single case.

This isn't true at all, both Maoism and Stalinism were fairly explicitly Han and Russian nationalist respectively, if more in action than rhetoric.

[Maponus]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

This isn't true at all, both Maoism and Stalinism were fairly explicitly Han and Russian nationalist respectively, if more in action than rhetoric.

Stalin executed the Pro-Stalin Nationalists too, you know.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

This isn't true at all, both Maoism and Stalinism were fairly explicitly Han and Russian nationalist respectively, if more in action than rhetoric.

No again. The Cultural Revolution was all about the complete annihilation of traditional Han culture, and the Stalinist actions such as repression in a savage sense of traditional cultures all over the USSR, fostering new Soviet identities, and creating and destroying their own bureaucracies were not the actions of nationalists. Stalinism did turn into Russian nationalism in WWII, but this was more as a means to preserve any kind of USSR at all and be damned the consequences than planned action. In its stabler fashions the USSR deliberately sought to be a multi-national "federalist" state of various Soviet Socialist Republics. This is the direct antithesis of Tsarist Russification.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Maponus

Stalin executed the Pro-Stalin Nationalists too, you know.

Of which variety? Of course Stalin would be opposed to non-Russian nationalists.

But killed member of faction X, ergo, fundamentally opposed something those members supported isn't a very good argument.

[Basileus444]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

Doesn't industrialization pretty much require a somewhat literate work-force and the packing together of an urban proletariat which makes some sort of Democracy inevitable?

That's what I was wondering. The growth (or attempted growth) of factory worker unions are an obvious inspiration for wider democracy in the society. But the early US had a democratic government (admittedly with limited sufferage) before it industrialized, and universal sufferage (for white males anyway) was instituted in the 1820s, decades before it was a serious industrial society.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

No again. The Cultural Revolution was all about the complete annihilation of traditional Han culture

I basically don't really consider destruction of traditional culture necessarily anti-thesis to all types of nationalism. Remember that, the one source of legitimacy the CCP always drew on from 1949 on was Mao's "the Chinese people have stood up" despite whatever policy failures committed by the CCP.

and the Stalinist actions such as repression in a savage sense of traditional cultures all over the USSR, fostering new Soviet identities, and creating and destroying their own bureaucracies were not the actions of nationalists. Stalinism did turn into Russian nationalism in WWII, but this was more as a means to preserve any kind of USSR at all and be damned the consequences than planned action. In its stabler fashions the USSR deliberately sought to be a multi-national "federalist" state of various Soviet Socialist Republics. This is the direct antithesis of Tsarist Russification.

Federalization of the USSR wasn't Stalin's doing, but in reality federalization was a myth during Stalin's era anyway. Ukraine for instance, was practically a Russian ran colony: something like 90% of its officials were Russian when something like <10% of its population were. While russification was gone, Soviet rule meant Russian rule: the Soviet Union was always a Russian state.

[Maponus]

Originally Posted by RousseauX

Of which variety? Of course Stalin would be opposed to non-Russian nationalists.

The Great-Russian variety who saw the Soviet state as a continuation of the Russian Empire, of course.

Remember, it easy to forget that he was not a Russian himself, therefore it simply not possible to consider him a Russian Nationalist, as he was directly invalid in the suppression of his own nation, Georgia! Pan-Slavic? Definitely. Manipulated feelings of Patriotism? Certainly. But a Russian Nationalist? Nah.

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by Maponus

The Great-Russian variety who saw the Soviet state as a continuation of the Russian Empire, of course.

Remember, it easy to forget that he was not a Russian himself, therefore it simply not possible to consider him a Russian Nationalist, as he was directly invalid in the suppression of his own nation, Georgia! Pan-Slavic? Definitely. Manipulated feelings of Patriotism? Certainly. But a Russian Nationalist? Nah.

Yes it's weird, but remember even Lenin himself called Stalin "the great Russian chauvinist".