AHQ: What is the Exact Series of Events that made Modern Egalitarian -ish Societies Possible ?

[Tosa Inu]

Republican Rome still have their own Aristocratic Families, The supposedly meritocratic Chinese with imperial examination and Confucian Philosophy repeatedly falls into hands of Aristocratic Warlordism time and time again, and even Italian and Dutch Republics are mostly noble Families trying to pretend treating others as equal while trying to hoard powers for themselves.

Well, we all knew about how American and French Revolutions were able to grew and thrive due to Printing Press and literate society, with Guns to equalize men on the battlefield.

But that series of events also happened earlier in two other places before. both Mughal India and Song China has wide literacy in their society, centralized government, some form of printing press... And guns... At least the more primitive forms. And while controversial to some, both Song and Mughal have been said to stand upon Industrial Revolution by themselves.

Why there's a French Revolution and not Song or Mughal Revolution?

 

[Domz]

A combination of culture and economics. The question here isn't really "Why didn't China or India industrialize?" but "What were the conditions that made industrialization possible in Europe?"

I think the path goes something like Mesopotamia->Ancient Greece->Roman Empire->Decentralized Christian Europe/Franks->Emergence of Banking and the Renaissance->Reformation/Enlightenment->Industrial Revolution->Democracy/World Wars.

Mesopotamia being the birthplace of agriculture and civilization.

Ancient Greece for developing democracy, science/philosophy/mathematics, "the citizen". Its scholarship goes on to heavily influence Europe and the Muslim world.

Roman Empire for unifying Europe under one empire and spread Christianity throughout Europe.

Decentralized Christian Europe by creating splinter states that was unified by the Pope, the symbolic successor of Rome. The Franks popularized a landholding warrior elite and Parliament.

Banking and artisanship proliferates in places like the Low Countries, HRE, and Italy, where there's small states with tons of competition and close proximity to other world civilizations (Middle East, Silk Road, Indian Ocean).

Reformation/Enlightenment undermines the church in favor of scientific reasoning. Also undermines divine right of kings that is so prevalent in other world civilizations (which is major factor in the European revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries but begins with the English Civil War).

The Industrial Revolution occurs when entrepreneurs and rich aristocrats invest in technologies that allows for greater output of goods (cotton gin) or faster communications (like the steamboat or airplane). Only works in places with legal protection of inventions stemming from the government checks and balances (i.e. the US or UK) or a just autocrat (i.e. China under Deng Xiaoping or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew).

The development of democracy, beginning in the UK and spreading throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The World Wars and globalization greatly facilitated this global transition and discouraged Western democracies from fighting any more total wars. Democracy is also a good deterrent to Fascism/Communism (as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the collapse of the European Empires/Nazi Germany during WWI and WWII, respectively).

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Have we met the criteria to be able to make the claim that we have reached that point without lying to ourselves?

 

[NotAMyth]

A combination of culture and economics. The question here isn't really "Why didn't China or India industrialize?" but "What were the conditions that made industrialization possible in Europe?"

I think the path goes something like Mesopotamia->Ancient Greece->Roman Empire->Decentralized Christian Europe/Franks->Emergence of Banking and the Renaissance->Reformation/Enlightenment->Industrial Revolution->Democracy/World Wars.

Mesopotamia being the birthplace of agriculture and civilization.

Ancient Greece for developing democracy, science/philosophy/mathematics, "the citizen". Its scholarship goes on to heavily influence Europe and the Muslim world.

Roman Empire for unifying Europe under one empire and spread Christianity throughout Europe.

Decentralized Christian Europe by creating splinter states that was unified by the Pope, the symbolic successor of Rome. The Franks popularized a landholding warrior elite and Parliament.

Banking and artisanship proliferates in places like the Low Countries, HRE, and Italy, where there's small states with tons of competition and close proximity to other world civilizations (Middle East, Silk Road, Indian Ocean).

Reformation/Enlightenment undermines the church in favor of scientific reasoning. Also undermines divine right of kings that is so prevalent in other world civilizations (which is major factor in the European revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries but begins with the English Civil War).

The Industrial Revolution occurs when entrepreneurs and rich aristocrats invest in technologies that allows for greater output of goods (cotton gin) or faster communications (like the steamboat or airplane). Only works in places with legal protection of inventions stemming from the government checks and balances (i.e. the US or UK) or a just autocrat (i.e. China under Deng Xiaoping or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew).

The development of democracy, beginning in the UK and spreading throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The World Wars and globalization greatly facilitated this global transition and discouraged Western democracies from fighting any more total wars. Democracy is also a good deterrent to Fascism/Communism (as shown by the collapse of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the collapse of the European Empires/Nazi Germany during WWI and WWII, respectively).

I agree that industrialization is the fundamental requirement for egalitarianism.
The problem with this is the presumption that the only way to industrialise is how it happened otl, where as that's just not the case. Western Europe was still largely oligarchic/aristocratic under a facade of Democracy/Capitalism when the industrial revolution hit.

Instead looking at it from a resource concentration to economic pressure pov, we see exactly why the Song or the Mughals were such big possibilities for industrialisation and what they had in common with 1800's Great Britain. Where they differed was in how less stable and secure their sheer size made them.

If this can be dealt with then really any great power can potentially industrialize, given access to resources and sufficient economic pressures (internal or external).

 

[PobreCesar]

1) Competiton: "Universal Empires" are not conducive to technological and financial innovation. The Fall of Rome (or more accurately, the lack of a Roman Tang Dynasty or even a Roman Mughal Empire equivalent) allowed for a far greater degree of financial and technological development. China began to engage in more financial experimentation when fragmented, but when reunified abandoned it for traditional methods of centralized control. As for Japan, the Tokugawa had tried to set up a localized "universal empire", but the Western powers ended that. And Japan was small enough to make the transition quickly but not too small to have weight to throw around.
2) Communication: The exchange of ideas allowed for the development of knowledge and eventually industrialization. There's a bit of a tension because universal empires are good for this but bad for competition. Western Europe benefited from having a universal religion (and thus universal lingua franca) after the universal empire was gone. Japan benefited from being a single country with a lingua franca.
3) The weakness of local barriers: The absence of significant clan or caste structures that would be able to prevent industrialization. Notably the places like Southern Italy or Greece where this was less the case were less industrialized.
4) Geography matters some for industrialization
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now all this helps lead to industrialization, but this would still not lead to egalitarian societies (indeed would probably move in the other direction) if not for the fact that there were strong religious/political/idealogical currents that emphasized the dignity of the human being and helped cause the bulk of the industrialized societies to opt for egalitarian arrangements.

Or in other words, industrialization removed the traditional reasons they couldn't, and they were convinced it was a good idea, so they started trying to.

 

[Tosa Inu]

Now all this helps lead to industrialization, but this would still not lead to egalitarian societies (indeed would probably move in the other direction) if not for the fact that there were strong religious/political/idealogical currents that emphasized the dignity of the human being and helped cause the bulk of the industrialized societies to opt for egalitarian arrangements.

Or in other words, industrialization removed the traditional reasons they couldn't, and they were convinced it was a good idea, so they started trying to.

Well, so instead of mere Industrialization, there needs to be religious/ideological factor at play?

Well, maybe Europe got lucky with Christianity and Reformation movements, since the Confucians would not accept that kind of structural equality, and the Buddhists taught your birth was based on Karma. Maybe there's a way with the Daoists though, with what if Yellow Turban Rebellions succeeded and Zhang Brothers turned out to be true idealists instead of merely power hungry rebels.

Also, maybe some sort of Islamic Reformation beginning in Mughal India and the Faith spread to the Hindu populace?

 

[PobreCesar]

Well, so instead of mere Industrialization, there needs to be religious/ideological factor at play?

Well mere industrialization would simply destroy the old agricultural oligarchy and replace it with a new industrial one (or, on the off chance that the old oligarchs were abnormally clever, simply involve them changing jobs). So in order to have egalitarianism, people have to believe in that, and have social mechanisms in place to fight for it and push back. Some measure of careful balancing is called for here. If local groups are too strong, they'll crush potential entrepreneurs. But if they're too weak, then the oligarchy can grow unfettered. So your egalitarians need to be organized but not regimented I suppose. (This is the point where Europe really lucked out - as you put it - with religion).

Maybe there's a way with the Daoists though, with what if Yellow Turban Rebellions succeeded and Zhang Brothers turned out to be true idealists instead of merely power hungry rebels

I would also point out that Japan got there through ( to oversimplify) agricultural aristocracy which formed the beginning of an industrial oligarchy, which was smashed flat in a foreign war (WW2), which leads to a relatively egalitarian society. But a lot of what matters is how society is structured after the old elite's power is destroyed. In modern China the landlords were destroyed by the Communists, who their own leader felt were turning into an oligarchy. So the said leader (Mao) tore apart the country with the Cultural Revolution, at the end of which he died and a new, even more robust oligarchy emerged. Obviously, this wasn't just about belief since the crushing of landlords and mass death from the Great Famine also played a role in destroying the ability of society to resist the oligarchal turns.

 

[Domz]

Well mere industrialization would simply destroy the old agricultural oligarchy and replace it with a new industrial one (or, on the off chance that the old oligarchs were abnormally clever, simply involve them changing jobs). So in order to have egalitarianism, people have to believe in that, and have social mechanisms in place to fight for it and push back. Some measure of careful balancing is called for here. If local groups are too strong, they'll crush potential entrepreneurs. But if they're too weak, then the oligarchy can grow unfettered. So your egalitarians need to be organized but not regimented I suppose. (This is the point where Europe really lucked out - as you put it - with religion).


I would also point out that Japan got there through ( to oversimplify) agricultural aristocracy which formed the beginning of an industrial oligarchy, which was smashed flat in a foreign war (WW2), which leads to a relatively egalitarian society. But a lot of what matters is how society is structured after the old elite's power is destroyed. In modern China the landlords were destroyed by the Communists, who their own leader felt were turning into an oligarchy. So the said leader (Mao) tore apart the country with the Cultural Revolution, at the end of which he died and a new, even more robust oligarchy emerged. Obviously, this wasn't just about belief since the crushing of landlords and mass death from the Great Famine also played a role in destroying the ability of society to resist the oligarchal turns.

The funny thing about Japan and Germany was that the only reason they have liberal democracies today was because their societies were completely taken apart and rebuilt by the victorious Western Allies after WW2. I can easily see Japan in a situation not too different to modern Thailand or Saudi Arabia if it did not pursue its path of self-destruction in WW2.

 

[prani]

Also, maybe some sort of Islamic Reformation beginning in Mughal India and the Faith spread to the Hindu populace?

You can wait for the heat death of the universe but the idea that Mughals can reform is just ASB, The Mughals presided over a rigid feudal system that favored extreme wealth inequality, so yeah you had few people who possessed incredible amount of wealth and power but the vast majority of the population was poor and living just above subsistence. The land tenure system did not enable the emergence of a middle class farmers who could innovate in production processes and produce surplus food and Industrial crops and thus become richer and thus have a consumer base for the products of the industrial revolution.

Well, so instead of mere Industrialization, there needs to be religious/ideological factor at play?

I have to disagree. First of all let us get the definition of Industrialization straightened out IMO it is the application of Chemical energy, such as coal as opposed to Muscle power or animal power or wind or water, to operate industrial technology as opposed to artisanal tech, to produce standardized goods at a scale.

One of the major requirement for Industrial revolution is that there should be shortage of labor so that it incentivizes the adoption of technology as to replace labor or in the alternative have a market that is so big that demand emerging from that market can be satisfied only by adoption of industrial technology to production process. Mughal India had too many people so there is no market for technology and the demand for textile and metals (The 1st two products that began to be manufactured on a industrial scale) was too low because people were too poor so there is no incentive to adopt technology. What instead you got in Mughal India was production of goods at a scale where by you generated economies of scale that sorta looked like there was some Industrialization but it wasn't industrialization.

You can have it other way around as well if the society satisfies either of the criteria. The native society might import technologies from Europe and begin Industrialization which will cause butterflies in the society something that happened in Russia but Russian Industrialization was kinda wrapped because it was driven by foreign capital to meet the demand of foreign markets but in Mughal society or some other state in its place, Industrialization is driven by domestic Capital to meet domestic demand which makes the process sustained and stable. And we know Russian empire was basically backward socially and Industrialization was state driven or driven by foreign capital so governmental or economic reforms are needed but not necessity for social or religious reforms to precede Industrialization, a strong state can a imperfect substitute

 

[Neoteros]

You can wait for the heat death of the universe but the idea that Mughals can reform is just ASB, The Mughals presided over a rigid feudal system that favored extreme wealth inequality, so yeah you had few people who possessed incredible amount of wealth and power but the vast majority of the population was poor and living just above subsistence. The land tenure system did not enable the emergence of a middle class farmers who could innovate in production processes and produce surplus food and Industrial crops and thus become richer and thus have a consumer base for the products of the industrial revolution.


I have to disagree. First of all let us get the definition of Industrialization straightened out IMO it is the application of Chemical energy, such as coal as opposed to Muscle power or animal power or wind or water, to operate industrial technology as opposed to artisanal tech, to produce standardized goods at a scale.

One of the major requirement for Industrial revolution is that there should be shortage of labor so that it incentivizes the adoption of technology as to replace labor or in the alternative have a market that is so big that demand emerging from that market can be satisfied only by adoption of industrial technology to production process. Mughal India had too many people so there is no market for technology and the demand for textile and metals (The 1st two products that began to be manufactured on a industrial scale) was too low because people were too poor so there is no incentive to adopt technology. What instead you got in Mughal India was production of goods at a scale where by you generated economies of scale that sorta looked like there was some Industrialization but it wasn't industrialization.

You can have it other way around as well if the society satisfies either of the criteria. The native society might import technologies from Europe and begin Industrialization which will cause butterflies in the society something that happened in Russia but Russian Industrialization was kinda wrapped because it was driven by foreign capital to meet the demand of foreign markets but in Mughal society or some other state in its place, Industrialization is driven by domestic Capital to meet domestic demand which makes the process sustained and stable. And we know Russian empire was basically backward socially and Industrialization was state driven or driven by foreign capital so governmental or economic reforms are needed but not necessity for social or religious reforms to precede Industrialization, a strong state can a imperfect substitute

Had the late Mughal been even more fragmented, with its more wayward provinces (such as Bengal) being wholly independent, would those provinces have been able to industrialize at the same time Belgium and Great Britain did? There's absolutely no way the EIC would've been able to conquer Bengal, who was already filthy rich for the standards of that era, that way, and the industrial age would've seen competing European and Indian spheres of influence, probably.

 

[prani]

Had the late Mughal been even more fragmented, with its more wayward provinces (such as Bengal) being wholly independent, would those provinces have been able to industrialize at the same time Belgium and Great Britain did? There's absolutely no way the EIC would've been able to conquer Bengal, who was already filthy rich for the standards of that era, that way, and the industrial age would've seen competing European and Indian spheres of influence, probably.

Problem is the land tenure system that we had, it simply provided no incentive to innovate and there by increase production and diversify and there by increase one's income, income and wealth was concentrated at the very top in hands of Nawab, Jagirdars, Zamindars etc and in the hands of the financiers (sometimes they were inter changeable), the former was a problem as they functioned as a unproductive rent seeking elites, the latter not so much because they would perform the important work of providing capital in the form of loans ( not equity or capital in a partnership firms as they were pretty risky) to farmers and to artisans so yeah it was rich but the net results was income and wealth was concentrated more and more in the hands of these people not in the hands of the middle class farmers and artisans who could have adopted new technology but could not because they were starved of capital and there was no market because they were impoverished.

To remedy this problem, the state has to step in and set up factories and workshops that uses modern technology to produce goods, maybe set up a company and offer shares to these rich elites and after a while the concept of corporate form of business would be popularized and banking system can be evolved. But we never had such leadership in any of the regions of India except Mysore in the late 19th century and early to mid 20th century.

What you proposed can be done but that would require a radical change in the mindset of the political elites, they have to REALISE that they are falling behind and that things have to change moving forward else they are done for. A fragmented India would certainly help matters as competition both Military and economic might spur the adoption of Industrial tech by some region in the country BUT i would not hold my breath. Mughals thoughts they were the greatest in the world and all other countries are just laughable, the Marathas were just a bunch of warlords who were just good at war, they personified the idea of total war; a Military that has a state, while the rest of India was just far behind in terms of technology and organization vis a vis europe as was evidenced by loss of overseas trade to the Europeans.

 

[Citrakayah]

You can, and often did, have egalitarian unindustrialized or agrarian societies. There were egalitarian movements in hierarchical egalitarian societies. While these movements did face difficulties and were often suppressed, they weren't easily suppressed either. These societies didn't look like modern egalitarian societies, but that didn't change what they were.

Arguing that Christianity was responsible is fundamentally unserious, given its long history serving as justification for divine right of kings.

 

[catalfalque]

What you get in European monarchies is a continuum - they adopt the rising mercantile class into the nobility, they adopt the rising industrialist class into the nobility. Countries which resist doing this, have a dichotomy. Britain even adopts the newspaper-owners into the nobility, and whilst the House of Lords remains relevant into the 1980s this continues to work.

If a regime is against the rising economic power of sub-sections of itself then it is going to find development difficult, even impossible.

 

[Citrakayah]

Well, so instead of mere Industrialization, there needs to be religious/ideological factor at play?

Well, maybe Europe got lucky with Christianity and Reformation movements, since the Confucians would not accept that kind of structural equality, and the Buddhists taught your birth was based on Karma. Maybe there's a way with the Daoists though, with what if Yellow Turban Rebellions succeeded and Zhang Brothers turned out to be true idealists instead of merely power hungry rebels.

Also, maybe some sort of Islamic Reformation beginning in Mughal India and the Faith spread to the Hindu populace?

This is basically just Orientalism. There are egalitarian interpretations of Christianity. There are also egalitarian interpretations of all these other religions/philosophies you have mentioned, and there are authoritarian interpretations of Christianity (for almost all of its history, these dominated). But weirdly, it's the non-Christians (or a least non-Abrahamic) religions which are assumed to be inherently authoritarian and no one ever seems to argue that Christianity is inherently reactionary and will make it less likely that an egalitarian ethos will develop.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Have we met the criteria to be able to make the claim that we have reached that point without lying to ourselves?

Yeah, this. Powerful families are still relevant in modern Western politics; they wax and wane in power, and sometimes draw in new blood, but egalitarian is not a word I would use to describe a society that prides itself on meritocracy (however misplaced that pride may be).

 

[Beatriz]

Can any Hindus or Buddhists enter the thread?