AHC: Qing Industrial Revolution

What would stop China holding together, just with a different system?

Yes, industrialization is rough. But nothing rewarding is gained without effort.

The focus of holding the empire together in harmony took valid presidency over trying to modernize. If the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan was to be any indication, China would be bound for even more civil strife then it already had OTL if tried while maintaining an empire oriented status quo almost void of individual foreign trade.
 
The focus of holding the empire together in harmony took valid presidency over trying to modernize. If the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan was to be any indication, China would be bound for even more civil strife then it already had OTL if tried while maintaining an empire oriented status quo almost void of individual foreign trade.

And it never occurred to anyone that holding the empire together and modernization were not mutually exclusive.

Britain held together, France did, fethin' Austria did, Russia did, the United States did, Japan did - I'm not going to count Italy and Germany as they united in this period, so its not undoing the old order of the old state.

It would take adjustments, but the idea that if one believed really hard, policies would not have consequences doesn't work.
 
It is not easy

And it never occurred to anyone that holding the empire together and modernization were not mutually exclusive.

Britain held together, France did, fethin' Austria did, Russia did, the United States did, Japan did - I'm not going to count Italy and Germany as they united in this period, so its not undoing the old order of the old state.

Britain did after it the plague decimated the population, any would be resistance from Scotland, Ireland and Welsh was thoroughly crushed. There is a reason why England refers to itself as the birthplace of the industrial revolution.

France only took to industrializing in a wider scope after the revolution basically killed off or cut down the power of would-be opposition from the elite. It was in turn in reaction to England and the German states. Certain German principalities such as Sussex-Weimar, Bavaria and Prussia were already industrialized to an extent when they were unified into Germany. They were more easily able to due so as a motivation to boost their output for their relatively small size (except Bavaria and Prussia which were motivated by war). It was also Bismark's policy to industrialize to counter the power of other European countries' colonial power.

I would like to point out Italy is a land that never industrialized to its potential until the mid-20th century. Since most of the individual states either thrived on mercantile trade or in the case of the Papal state, indulgences and religious tourism. It has been discussed as one of the reasons behind Italy's woeful performance in both World Wars. There are numerous TLs that address this issue as well.

I already addressed Japan's motivation out of fear of being overtaking by foreign influence and only after the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown. I also addressed how the in the US a policy of promoting total industrialization set the stage for the Civil War.

The Austrian empire (later Austria-Hungary) had a few highly industrialized centers, namely Bohemia. But with the exception of some upstarts who were subsequently squashed such as Napoleon I, III and Bismark Austria was largely left alone as the Hapsburg's backyard and bulwark against Ottoman expansion until WWI.

Russia's road to industrialization was carried starting with Peter the Great in such a despotic manner that the repercussions of class division and alienation through undoing millennia of tradition which made it no surprise that it was rife for revolution.

There were rulers during this time that at many points could not even get the policies passed for establishing the finance needed to foster industrial development without being overthrown such as Iran. Asking a country to Industrialize in even the early 19th century is like expecting a poor country today to completely wire themselves up with fiber optics using hardware they assembled and open their network completely to the internet without trouble. Such expectation of modernizing can't be taken lightly without shaking a lot up if there was not a strong motivation everybody can get behind as well as the material and technical means to do so.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
The focus of holding the empire together in harmony took valid presidency over trying to modernize. If the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan was to be any indication, China would be bound for even more civil strife then it already had OTL if tried while maintaining an empire oriented status quo almost void of individual foreign trade.
Political unification was precisely what allowed Japan to succeed in its industrialization. When Japan abolished feudalism in 1871 for instance there was very little opposition to it because it already killed the opposition a couple years earlier during the Boshin war.

The civil strife presiding and following the Meiji restoration had the benefit of killing the anti-modernizers in the first couple of rounds of civil war and the pro-feudals in the later rounds. It entrenched the Satsuma-Choshu clique in power. In other words, civil strife is useful, perhaps even required, for Chinese industrialization to take place as long as the modernizers win out and ends up ruling the country.

I already addressed Japan's motivation out of fear of being overtaking by foreign influence and only after the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown.
This isn't actually true, the desire for modernization was already there pre-Meiji, it's just that by the 1870 or so enough of the conservatives got killed in the power struggles for the modernizers to decisively take power.
 
Last edited:
I already addressed Japan's motivation out of fear of being overtaking by foreign influence and only after the Tokugawa Shogunate was overthrown. I also addressed how the in the US a policy of promoting total industrialization set the stage for the Civil War.

Not really, no. The stage for the Civil War was set by the slave states having a problem with the concept that "the North" was a bloc of Free States anti-Southern (and pursuing policies kinda fulfilling that) - otherwise we'd see states like Virginia more sympathetic to the Union than states like Michigan.

Its extremely telling as far as industrialization driving the US apart that the division of the US was (some of the) slave states versus everyone else, NOT the industrialized states vs. the agricultural majority, whatever else one makes of the ACW.

Asking a country to Industrialize in even the early 19th century is like expecting a poor country today to completely wire themselves up with fiber optics using hardware they assembled and open their network completely to the internet without trouble. Such expectation of modernizing can't be taken lightly without shaking a lot up if there was not a strong motivation everybody can get behind as well as the material and technical means to do so.
And my point is that other countries survived a lot being shaken up. Its not as if "national industrialization" has to be something like the OTL USSR or late Tsarist Russia - official encouragement helps, and can certainly provide a market - but British textile production expanded because textile producers saw profit, not because the government funded them. Same with most other industry most of the time.

Meanwhile, the other countries all faced the turmoil successfully - including Russia, which seems to have suffered more from what didn't change (the crushing poverty of the majority of the population, the obliviousness to social problems and concerns of the tsars) than what did at creating the revolution.

I'm not trying to say it would be easy to industrialize, but it wasn't easy for any of the powers that had to go through it. Somehow they managed to figure out solutions and people who wanted profit figured out ways to expand.

Iran and states like it were in a far weaker state in the late 18th century than China.
 
Last edited:
Industrialization can't be made for the sake of Industrialization

Political unification was precisely what allowed Japan to succeed in its industrialization. When Japan abolished feudalism in 1871 for instance there was very little opposition to it because it already killed the opposition a couple years earlier during the Boshin war.

The civil strife presiding and following the Meiji restoration had the benefit of killing the anti-modernizers in the first couple of rounds of civil war and the pro-feudals in the later rounds. It entrenched the Satsuma-Choshu clique in power. In other words, civil strife is useful, perhaps even required, for Chinese industrialization to take place as long as the modernizers win out and ends up ruling the country.

I already went over the mindset on how Japanese society was able to reach a more widely motivated consensus on reforming due in part to the geographic orientation and size. I forgot to mention that most of the centralization of government in Japanese society was already done under Tokugawa thanks to shogunate established tolls and increasingly centralize military power. The size of these apparatuses also lead to the shogun's downfall as they decided to turn on them with the aid of formally exiled daimyo.

As for China, considering the Taiping rebellion took approximately 14 years to put down with the aide of the UK, France and US I can only imagine how hard it would be if the Qing had to face such challenges on their own as this rebellion displayed the failure of the Qing dynasty to centralize power besides culturally. In fact, the Qing only got foreign help because the rebellion was reform oriented and was a threat to keeping China unified. I don't think magically inverting the Qing dynasty to be reform minded while battling reactionaries would make it any easier as many places throughout China were labeled as the 'Pearl of the Orient' from their popularity as already established places of foreign interest.

Not really, no. The stage for the Civil War was set by the slave states having a problem with the concept that "the North" was a bloc of Free States anti-Southern (and pursuing policies kinda fulfilling that) - otherwise we'd see states like Virginia more sympathetic to the Union than states like Michigan.

Its extremely telling as far as industrialization driving the US apart that the division of the US was (some of the) slave states versus everyone else, NOT the industrialized states vs. the agricultural majority, whatever else one makes of the ACW.

But lest we forget the system of slavery in the South was what made people in those regions reluctant if not hostile to wide scale industrialization as the system favored making more profit selling raw goods then spending on mechanization. With only a few exception being the relatively simple cotton gin which enabled them to sell more cotton quickly. This is akin to saying that a country today is industrializing because it has adopted methods to extract more oil, coal, gold or diamonds which is not the case.

And my point is that other countries survived a lot being shaken up. Its not as if "national industrialization" has to be something like the OTL USSR or late Tsarist Russia - official encouragement helps, and can certainly provide a market - but British textile production expanded because textile producers saw profit, not because the government funded them. Same with most other industry most of the time.


Meanwhile, the other countries all faced the turmoil successfully - including Russia, which seems to have suffered more from what didn't change (the crushing poverty of the majority of the population, the obliviousness to social problems and concerns of the tsars) than what did at creating the revolution.
I think you have a different view of 'survival' then I do as I judge it depending on the individual or at most social and political class rather then a geographic entity on a map. In this regard, trying to compare Britain's struggle to industrialization which it did have such as urban overcrowding and the initial loss of income of farmers was a walk in the park relative to Russian struggles that were like climbing Mount Everest.

I'm not trying to say it would be easy to industrialize, but it wasn't easy for any of the powers that had to go through it. Somehow they managed to figure out solutions and people who wanted profit figured out ways to expand.

Iran and states like it were in a far weaker state in the late 18th century than China.
At least we seem to agree on some points. But both Iran and China had the challenge of being ruled by generations of conservative dynasties, and China's was on a far larger scale to maintain.
 
Last edited:
As for China, considering the Taiping rebellion took approximately 14 years to put down with the aide of the UK, France and US I can only imagine how hard it would be if the Qing had to face such challenges on their own as this rebellion displayed the failure of the Qing dynasty to centralize power besides culturally. In fact, the Qing only got foreign help because the rebellion was reform oriented and was a threat to keeping China unified. I don't think magically inverting the Qing dynasty to be reform minded while battling reactionaries would make it any easier as many places throughout China were labeled as the 'Pearl of the Orient' from their popularity as already established places of foreign interest.

Who said anything about magic inversion? It didn't take magic for other states to not be as hostile to it as OTL China, and the dynasty's failure to centralize power is its problem - which is to say, something that relates to the OTL people's failings, not to some inherent barrier for China.

But lest we forget the system of slavery in the South was what made people in those region reluctant if not hostile to wide scale industrialization as the system favored making more profit selling raw goods then spending on mechanization. With only a few exception being the relatively simple cotton gin which enabled them to sell more cotton quickly. This is akin to saying that a country today is industrializing because it has adopted methods to extract more oil, coal, gold or diamonds which is not the case.
Except that plenty of nonslave states were still largely agricultural. That some of the largely agricultural states were slave states does not mean it was an agricultural vs. industrial thing.

I think you have a different view of 'survival' then I do as I judge it depending on the individual or at most social and political class rather then a geographic entity on a map. In this regard, trying to compare Britain's struggle to industrialization which it did have such as urban overcrowding and the initial loss of income of farmers was a walk in the park relative to Russian struggles that were like climbing Mount Everest.
If we're talking about nations ("China", say) surviving or not, then the geopolitical entity matters more than people who usually weren't killed in the first place (Britain, Austria-Hungary, hard to tell on France since the FR coincided with the British IR, Germany, Russia, the US).

And Russia's struggles may have been considerably harder, but it still managed to survive.

At least we seem to agree on some points. But both Iran and China had the challenge of being ruled by generations of conservative dynasties, and China's was on a far larger scale to maintain.
And that is precisely because of decisions made by the humans involved. It was not untrue of Austria, say, and yet that didn't prevent outright Austrian industrialization.

Definitely not untrue of Russia, and it was arguably 4th place.

So yes, China had a conservative tradition. That doesn't prevent changes.

And as for industrialization made for the sake of industrialization (to address the title of your post): Everywhere that did industrialize did so for the sake of power, profit, or both. Are power and profit so irrelevant to China's interests?
 

RousseauX

Donor
I already went over the mindset on how Japanese society was able to reach a more widely motivated consensus on reforming due in part to the geographic orientation and size.
There is nothing about "geographic orientation and size" that pre-determined the "Japanese mindset" to go for modernization. I disagree with this for the simple reason that there wasn't a "widely motivated consensus on reforming" until one group of political elite wiped out another and their followers.

I forgot to mention that most of the centralization of government in Japanese society was already done under Tokugawa thanks to shogunate established tolls and increasingly centralize military power. The size of these apparatuses also lead to the shogun's downfall as they decided to turn on them with the aid of formally exiled daimyo.
Yes, China had no lack of centralized power either before the 19th century

As for China, considering the Taiping rebellion took approximately 14 years to put down with the aide of the UK, France and US I can only imagine how hard it would be if the Qing had to face such challenges on their own as this rebellion displayed the failure of the Qing dynasty to centralize power besides culturally. In fact, the Qing only got foreign help because the rebellion was reform oriented and was a threat to keeping China unified. I don't think magically inverting the Qing dynasty to be reform minded while battling reactionaries would make it any easier as many places throughout China were labeled as the 'Pearl of the Orient' from their popularity as already established places of foreign interest.
You need the rebellion to kill off enough of the conservatives so the modernizers are left at the court can mount a coup like in Japan. The Qing had 50 odd years after the Taiping to pull it off. Making the Taiping less destructive helps too.
 
I made an essay.

I had a whole lengthy set of responses that got lost due to errors trying to submit it so I'll keep this as a single but longer reply. :D It will be just concerning China as I feel the peoples' of that region had factors that, like Russia, were very difficult for a single regime to achieve. I also believe that prevailing ideals in the west such as Calvinism combined with catastrophes that changed the population along with the wars fought on so many different ethnic and ideological lines shaped the way Europe thus subsequently the 'western' world utilized capital to promote private or semi-private industry.

The Qing dynasty ruled based on tradition that was built upon that which the Ming ruled before it that was formed through philosophies that centered around the lore each dynasty that succeeded or was around at the same time as others. These records along with those which collectively talk about past are what created the identity of Chinese culture to the point that it even shaped the language itself. This was even preserved by the Mongols as it constituted such a strong cultural source of unification and maintaining rule in such a vast and populated expanse. A lot of cultures eventually maintain this kind of mythos but China's seems to be the lengthiest and with quite a bit of continuity despite how much has been lost.

It is a very strong set of meticulously preserving (or at least the perception of) traditions and historical events that cover a wide range of topics that effect policymaking as it was rigorously learned throughout the generations by those who made up the apparatus of ruling the country. History and teachings handed down tended to also show that individual ambition tended to lead to chaos and violence. So a very panoptic vigilance by those who ruled or helped the ruler was promoted since there was no foreign expeditions to send these people on for most of history if there wasn't a state of war. I think a Japanese proverb sums it up best as "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."

What is interesting is now through modern methods of archeology new findings and ways of translating thus understanding Confucius as well as other records of ancient Chinese history are being revealed. I admit China has had a history of embracing different philosophies when many people one has failed, such as competing philosophies behind Confucianism, Mohism (legalism) and Daoism.

One good way in my opinion to look into Chinese philosophy is exploring what many consider its cultural root which is Confucius's Analects, which he claims is simply his own attempt to perverse the 'old ways.' You see a pattern here?:rolleyes: http://www.asian-studies.org/EAA/jones.htm

When Mozi (legalist) challenged Confucianism with his own interpretation of the 'sage kings' his ideas seemed to be widely adopted by the rulers of the time. Mohism made proclamation such as stating making music was a waste of resources and it is the ghosts or spirits of good people that die which maintain the order of the world through fate. His philosophies may seem crazy today but it seems his texts were presented in the first recorded dialectic way of debating in the region, which must have made it seem convincing. So it was inevitable other philosophers who claimed to advocate Confucianism came about to challenge it such as Xunzi. But these people in the effort of defending Confucianism also changed it in a way that made it more authoritarian which the author may have hoped rulers reading saw as practical. But in a way it seems to me at least this Neo-Confucianism is what aided in setting subsequent Chinese dynasties down a path of increased isolation and resistance to change. It is ironic how the constant reforming of a philosophy lead to such cultural ossification.

I am not stating it is impossible for the Qing dynasty to industrialize. But to do in a way that is contemporarily described by mechanized and liberal nature(as Chinese kingdoms had held a qualitative and quantitative edge on production which many qualify as industry along with the Indian subcontinent) would require a fundamental shift in the interpretation of many Chinese texts. This would hopefully have the eventual outcome of teaching bureaucrats and rulers notions such as merchants might not be the highest class of people, but it doesn't make them lesser human beings.

In summary, the embrace of industrialization was not done through simple top down policy or what technology was available but also through what ideas came about at the time to turn it into an accepted norm. It is up to people and policy makers to reach a consensus to adopt it, even if there was no direct say involved. As far as modern industrialization goes, Britain easily adopted it due to prevailing ideas and needs of the time. For France it took a revolution. In US, I still believe it was not taken as an accepted facet of the entire society until after the ACW. Russia, like China. So for a TL for the Qing dynasty to embrace and successfully undertake industrialization without risk of falling is to be a fundamental shift in Chinese philosophy at the time which favored it. This would make a change in policy appear legitimate and in line with the prevailing mythos which played a heavy role in granting Chinese regimes legitimacy. It would hopefully lessen rebellion to a point that most people wouldn't believe the dynasty lost its mandate. They may lose land to foreign invaders in the process but a gradual acceptance would insure the Qing's survival post-industrialization.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be some misconceptions here:

Qing was hardly feudal outside the hinterland inhabited by minorities.

Political wise, I don't think there's any country more centralized than Qing at that time. Viceroy who rule land larger than Germany come and go every few years at the whim of the emperor.

Military wise, Qing did not became millitia dependent until the Taiping Rebellion proving centralized army to be ineffective. (due to the sheer size of China)

Mohism has nothing to do with Legalism, the latter is influenced by Confucianism.

The reason they fail to industralize, IMHO, is the fear of technology that may threaten Manchurian rule, same as why firearm fell into disuse despite the effectiveness shown during late Ming era.
 
but British textile production expanded because textile producers saw profit
Saw profit and knew that they'd be allowed to keep most of it, without having to worry about the authorities suddenly introducing a very high 'windfall tax' or simply taking the entire businesses under official control... Points about which producers based in countries with more autocratic systems of government could be less confident...
 
Saw profit and knew that they'd be allowed to keep most of it, without having to worry about the authorities suddenly introducing a very high 'windfall tax' or simply taking the entire businesses under official control... Points about which producers based in countries with more autocratic systems of government could be less confident...

There is that. That kind of anticommercial seems to have been a serious concern for Chinese merchants and so forth - it was safer and better to invest in land, or to work with/bribe officials, than to explore new markets.

Not a situation encouraging the developments of the Dutch or British, even if not bad in the sense "China failed completely".
 

RousseauX

Donor
It is a very strong set of meticulously preserving (or at least the perception of) traditions and historical events that cover a wide range of topics that effect policymaking as it was rigorously learned throughout the generations by those who made up the apparatus of ruling the country. History and teachings handed down tended to also show that individual ambition tended to lead to chaos and violence. So a very panoptic vigilance by those who ruled or helped the ruler was promoted since there was no foreign expeditions to send these people on for most of history if there wasn't a state of war. I think a Japanese proverb sums it up best as "The nail that sticks out gets hammered down."


One good way in my opinion to look into Chinese philosophy is exploring what many consider its cultural root which is Confucius's Analects, which he claims is simply his own attempt to perverse the 'old ways.' You see a pattern here? http://www.asian-studies.org/EAA/jones.htm/
Cultural and philosophical factors preventing Chinese industrialization during say, the Ming or Qing in the 1700s is probably valid.

But the 19th century was a time when tradition, Confucian or otherwise, was torn down precisely because of how ineffective it was in dealing with the Europeans, to the point where by the early 20th century Chinese nationalists were vehemently rejecting everything Chinese and embracing everything western (as exemplified by the May 4th movement).

Similar tradition was also wholesale overturned by the Meiji Oligarch in Japan as well. For that matter you can argue similar traditions were overturned in the USSR by the Communists. In Japan the enough of the elite saw the failure of tradition to forcibly abandon it and there is no real reason why this couldn't happen in China as long as enough of the anti-modernizers are killed.
 
I hope 2 days isn't necroing

Mohism has nothing to do with Legalism, the latter is influenced by Confucianism.

Thank you for correcting me. I always thought that anything that promoted the authority of government, a clear notion of good and evil along with divine retribution was Legalist in nature. With Mohism being the precursor as it first introduced that dialectic and legal implications for clear cut societal distinctions. I will have to check more Legalist works as Eastern philosophy is a subject that is fairly new to me, but I am studying.

Cultural and philosophical factors preventing Chinese industrialization during say, the Ming or Qing in the 1700s is probably valid.

But the 19th century was a time when tradition, Confucian or otherwise, was torn down precisely because of how ineffective it was in dealing with the Europeans, to the point where by the early 20th century Chinese nationalists were vehemently rejecting everything Chinese and embracing everything western (as exemplified by the May 4th movement).

Similar tradition was also wholesale overturned by the Meiji Oligarch in Japan as well. For that matter you can argue similar traditions were overturned in the USSR by the Communists. In Japan the enough of the elite saw the failure of tradition to forcibly abandon it and there is no real reason why this couldn't happen in China as long as enough of the anti-modernizers are killed.

The problem is despite all the economic and mechanical notions of modernity being adopted the majority of the world was still a politically autocratic place where the heavenly mandate of kings/emperors/sultans was upheld and still respected to a degree.

So you are correct that the Meiji Restoration did throw out centuries of tradition but remember that this was done in the guise of 'restoring' the emperor to his rightful position under a modernized constitutional monarchy of sorts. This was a casted in such a way to allude to a step up and closer to the mandated rule as the past Tokugawa regime was vilified as a glorified generalissimo even if not the case. So it was fortunate that these progressive elites that dominated the Diet and military were able to choose an emperor that went along with these liberalizing notions to legitimize the new order.

Let us contrast us with China where despite many Han feeling that the Qing usurped authority, it was still done in an official manner that signified the passing of the heavenly mandate from one family to another as the imperial court was left intact. This is a method of holding power so intertwined with cultural tradition that have ossified with people growing so dependent on it to the point that it is unthinkable how one would continue to function without the other. It would be like asking the US Congress today to pass and Supreme Court today to uphold the Corwin Amendment. In both cases, the notion of changing or eliminating a common belief on a method of political discourse that has worked for ages. It would be met with widespread condemnation from almost all levels of society.

This would be especially true to those of less political conscious. I would argue that if changes were done later it would be worse as after all the failures of the Qing dynasty to hold back foreigner invaders conventional tradition would dictate their actions would be of a desperate tyrant who have lost their mandate. If the deposed emperor Pu Yi had a hard time modernizing the Forbidden Palace with stiff resistance from a bunch of Concubines and Eunuchs imagine the obstacles an emperor had to face with a whole society where a sizeable majority drew their positions from such tradition? I can imagine such actions to modernize from within would not only draw resistance from the outside but also from a well oiled (political) machine within to replace with a more compliant family member or relative.

One interesting effect from this could be an earlier diaspora of educated and politically conscious Chinese that would have interesting repercussions for future events for their respective communities.
 
Top