John Fredrick Parker
Donor
To get capitalism, you need a group of non-noble people to get rich enough to rival a noble in power.
Is a plague necessary for that? And if it is, would it help if say China had worse plagues? My sense is "no"...
To get capitalism, you need a group of non-noble people to get rich enough to rival a noble in power.
It seems those three no's -- a wealthy, independent middle class, a commercial-driven economy, and the cost of mechanization being less than cost of hand labor -- can be consolidated. The first two can be summed up as "capitalism", "modern economy", or what have you, while the latter is more or less dependent on the other two pre-requisites (and others, naturally).
If this seems an acceptable summary, that would be an answer to the first question.
Taking China -- or another East Asian nation if you rather -- as an example, the OP question is now: how could this country undergo the necessary economic revolution no later than Europe did OTL? (Under the assumption that the time from economic to industrial revolution is similar.)
Geekis Khan said:<snip re: China and India>
<snip re: Japan>
Sounds like some good ol' Max Weber
(Not meant as a criticism, JTBC)
Serendipity -- that could mean, in a Nobunaga lives TL...![]()
It seems those three no's -- a wealthy, independent middle class, a commercial-driven economy, and the cost of mechanization being less than cost of hand labor -- can be consolidated. The first two can be summed up as "capitalism", "modern economy", or what have you, while the latter is more or less dependent on the other two pre-requisites (and others, naturally).
If this seems an acceptable summary, that would be an answer to the first question.
Taking China -- or another East Asian nation if you rather -- as an example, the OP question is now: how could this country undergo the necessary economic revolution no later than Europe did OTL? (Under the assumption that the time from economic to industrial revolution is similar.)
Oda said:Geekhis Khan, your point about the Muslims seems, IMHO, moot in light of the fact that Ibn-Al-Haytham about a millennium ago was actually the inventor of the scientific method.
One thing I do not understand why the Muslims of the Islamic Golden Age never adopted printing (though they made very limited use of it, see here), despite having regular contact with China, where it was prolific, and clearly having a roughly equivalently developed society as the latter.
It's worth pointing out that industrialization was doing quite well for itself in Britain before the invention of a useful steam engine. That is, steam, and even coal, are quite irrelevant to the initiation of an industrial revolution - they are effects rather than causes. Instead what you really need are good reliable power sources - coal took over, and then oil, but wind and water were what started things off, and a great deal can be accomplished with them (even in fairly flat places like Britain).
Banks and financial markets must be present, and not simple ones either. The Harrapans were in fact nowhere near the level needed to invent the grandparents of the institutions needed for an IR. Tuscany circa 1100 is the earliest you saw much of the sort in Europe. Though certain at times the Chinese were there.
While you do need some level of urbanization, industry doesn't need to be in it. More important is that it has access to sizable markets - this makes industrialization tremendously difficult away from navigable waterways or high-quality, flat roads.
You do certainly need a truly advanced base of craftsmanship to start with. While it was technically possible to do much of the devises of the early IR in the early iron age, it really wasn't likely. They weren't good enough at fine detail work. Things were getting pretty good by the 1000s or so, especially if you don't focus on northern Europe.
More than anything, you need stability. The aforementioned Song might have pulled just this off except for war, and there's a fair argument the North Italians were on the verge as well before the peninsula was razed by combined action of French, Austrians, and Pope. I guarantee you it was the relative peace of England that allowed it to take the lead.
The Caliphates, I think, suffer the same impediment to industrialization as classical civilization- widespread use of slave labor. Would I be incorrect?
Yes and no, IIRC (any experts on Islam reading this?). Weren't most of the Islamic slaves "House Slaves" rather than "Field" ones? If so the Roman model doesn't necessarily work since there isn't the same massive cheap labor pool. Again, I could be wrong here.