Can industrialization happen without causing democracy?

[jacob ningen]

Could technocracy (stemming from cameralism) industrialize in no ARW/FRW scenario?

probably. In fact some junghegelianers argued that industrialization weakened democracy via requiring more power to effendim and bureuacracy over local anarcho-syndicalist communes taking turns as executive officers with minor issues passing by simple majority vote.

 

[Clandango]

Russia and China industrialized without becoming a democracy. And with the right POD, Italy and Spain could have industrialized without becoming democracies.

Though for both countries the long communist history (after the shorter democratic history they helped undermine) based their entire purpose of existence as being states where the common folk were in charge and elected candidates to represent them. Though at least with Chine, there were another half dozen parties on the ballots. But yes, harder to gain legitimacy if you do not give a reason for your own people to help out and do their best.

 

[Drizzt]

Depends, I doubt an absolute ruler would be very keen on giving concessions to the workers since he doesn't exactly gain anything from it, he would be forced to at some point but he would prefer not to.

Then you're thinking too simple. In every society there's multiple competing interests not some "honor amongst thieves for the rich". A Medieval King absolutely benefits from strengthening the guilds at the nobilitys expense.
Likewise an absolute monarch might find workers rights to be a useful tool against the plutocrats. It's not like he is paying the for the workplace safety measures, higher wages, days off, etc. Once passed they need to be enforced which means there'll be people on his payroll who can fine businesses or even shut them down.

To give two OTL examples from the very limited democratic UK:
The 1833 Factory Act which finally somewhat limited child labour, introduced maximum working hours, factory inspectors, etc was passed when very very few people could actually vote in the UK. Certainly not those who actually did the hard work in the mines and factories. It passed not because idealistic reformers were the majority in the UK parliament. It passed because in addition to the idealistic reformers most of the "Fat Tory Landowners" as Black Adder would call them voted for it in order to stick it to the upstart industrialists.
Likewise the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 happened only because a lot of Rich Capitalists who didn't give a fuck about poor people voted for it in order to screw over the Aristocratic Land Owners.

An absolute monarch - especially one who has examples like OTLs France and UK on how a rising Mercantile class will one way or the other usurp his power unless he clips their wings while he still can - has plenty of self-interested motivation to support the workers on occasion.

 

[Sceonn]

Pioneering an Industrial Revolution will require a suitable environs friendly to democratic values, but simply Industrializing does not.

 

[jacob ningen]

Then you're thinking too simple. In every society there's multiple competing interests not some "honor amongst thieves for the rich". A Medieval King absolutely benefits from strengthening the guilds at the nobilitys expense.
Likewise an absolute monarch might find workers rights to be a useful tool against the plutocrats. It's not like he is paying the for the workplace safety measures, higher wages, days off, etc. Once passed they need to be enforced which means there'll be people on his payroll who can fine businesses or even shut them down.

To give two OTL examples from the very limited democratic UK:
The 1833 Factory Act which finally somewhat limited child labour, introduced maximum working hours, factory inspectors, etc was passed when very very few people could actually vote in the UK. Certainly not those who actually did the hard work in the mines and factories. It passed not because idealistic reformers were the majority in the UK parliament. It passed because in addition to the idealistic reformers most of the "Fat Tory Landowners" as Black Adder would call them voted for it in order to stick it to the upstart industrialists.
Likewise the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 happened only because a lot of Rich Capitalists who didn't give a fuck about poor people voted for it in order to screw over the Aristocratic Land Owners.

An absolute monarch - especially one who has examples like OTLs France and UK on how a rising Mercantile class will one way or the other usurp his power unless he clips their wings while he still can - has plenty of self-interested motivation to support the workers on occasion.

like the 1867 reform bill too at least according to vossen https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol5/iss1/23/

 

[Jürgen]

The industrialization as we know it needed strong property right and a strong rule of law. This is easier to have in liberal democracies, but we also saw something similar in enlighten absolute monarchies.

The question is how could we imagine industrialization in other ways. As example it’s hard to imagine industrialization under a mercantilist regime, but not impossible.

 

[justinmil22]

Basically, I'm trying to ask if it is possible for a world to develop industrially and technologically to modern standards without liberal democracy becoming a major force in the world? I know that "authoritarianism" is just as much a development of the modern world as liberal democracy was, and the our would might be seen as totalitarian in the level of government control and power compared to the more decentralization states of the past, so saying "Could the modern world have stayed authoritarian?" wouldn't be that accurate of a question. But could the modern world's political systems have developed down a different path, steering mainly clear of the modern democracies based around universal suffrage and popular representation? Could non-democratic systems have come to dominate? Maybe if the industrial revolution starts outside of Europe, influenced by different ideas?

(Also, without something like a Nazi victory, or World Revolution™ scenario. They're not what I'm asking about.)

Thanks!

russia was industrializing as a authoritarian state and would have surpassed germany pree ww1 and nicholas the 2nd hated democracy and the duma

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Keeping people content with his rule and preventing the growth of a potential rival power bloc (super-rich people who aren't him) would both be gains.

The rich people tend to be more on the king's side, think for example how was the monarchy in France before 1848.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Then you're thinking too simple. In every society there's multiple competing interests not some "honor amongst thieves for the rich". A Medieval King absolutely benefits from strengthening the guilds at the nobilitys expense.
Likewise an absolute monarch might find workers rights to be a useful tool against the plutocrats. It's not like he is paying the for the workplace safety measures, higher wages, days off, etc. Once passed they need to be enforced which means there'll be people on his payroll who can fine businesses or even shut them down.

To give two OTL examples from the very limited democratic UK:
The 1833 Factory Act which finally somewhat limited child labour, introduced maximum working hours, factory inspectors, etc was passed when very very few people could actually vote in the UK. Certainly not those who actually did the hard work in the mines and factories. It passed not because idealistic reformers were the majority in the UK parliament. It passed because in addition to the idealistic reformers most of the "Fat Tory Landowners" as Black Adder would call them voted for it in order to stick it to the upstart industrialists.
Likewise the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 happened only because a lot of Rich Capitalists who didn't give a fuck about poor people voted for it in order to screw over the Aristocratic Land Owners.

An absolute monarch - especially one who has examples like OTLs France and UK on how a rising Mercantile class will one way or the other usurp his power unless he clips their wings while he still can - has plenty of self-interested motivation to support the workers on occasion.

Those are two classes of rich trying to outcompete each other, the UK wasn't an absolute monarchy.
The King doesn't have that much interest in preventing the exploitation of people because he is doing that himself so if there is no one else than him who is exploiting persons it won't end up good for him, he needs a social class with which to ally to rule effectively. The only example of absolute monarchy and industrialization I know about failed: pre-1848 France and the Russian Empire, because the king doesn't give a damn about the people since he is entitled to rule by God.

 

[Clandango]

The rich people tend to be more on the king's side, think for example how was the monarchy in France before 1848.

It varies. The “Sun King” centralized authority by spending huge swathes of money on a dirty palace and then refusing to listen to anyone who did not live there with him, scoffing at them and making comments to that effect. It was a bit like in Japan for a while, when the Shogunate kept loads of hostages and had people going to court needing to being large amounts of money on clothing in order to be up to the dress code, weakening them financially. And the rich in France.... well, that was mostly the nobility, who did not need to pay taxes and yet also did not actually do military service (to my knowledge) that was the original reason they were exempt from taxes. Or because they were originally their own lands and the Capets and Bourbons really had no claim to their regions outside of by custom. Part of why there were three different tax systems in France.

Those are two classes of rich trying to outcompete each other, the UK wasn't an absolute monarchy.
The King doesn't have that much interest in preventing the exploitation of people because he is doing that himself so if there is no one else than him who is exploiting persons it won't end up good for him, he needs a social class with which to ally to rule effectively. The only example of absolute monarchy and industrialization I know about failed: pre-1848 France and the Russian Empire, because the king doesn't give a damn about the people since he is entitled to rule by God.

Entitled by god? Hell, the Louis I mentioned about practically wanted to be worshipped.

 

[Aluma]

Always found interesting the idea of a syndicalist state that devolves into a absolute monarchy while remaining the trappings of a worker state in a similar fashion to the Roman Principate

With the de facto leader of unions managing to consolidate and centralize state functions into their line without altering the operarian self-management economic system

By default such a system would take place within a industrial nation and it certainly wouldnt be a democracy

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It varies. The “Sun King” centralized authority by spending huge swathes of money on a dirty palace and then refusing to listen to anyone who did not live there with him, scoffing at them and making comments to that effect. It was a bit like in Japan for a while, when the Shogunate kept loads of hostages and had people going to court needing to being large amounts of money on clothing in order to be up to the dress code, weakening them financially. And the rich in France.... well, that was mostly the nobility, who did not need to pay taxes and yet also did not actually do military service (to my knowledge) that was the original reason they were exempt from taxes. Or because they were originally their own lands and the Capets and Bourbons really had no claim to their regions outside of by custom. Part of why there were three different tax systems in France.

The Sun King created another nobility (noblesse de robe) to counter the established one (noblesse d'épée) but he didn't ally with the common people to defeat the nobility.
The King is unlikely to give concessions to the common people that easily IMO.

Entitled by god? Hell, the Louis I mentioned about practically wanted to be worshipped.

Most absolute rulers 'only' believed that they were entitled by God.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The rich people tend to be more on the king's side, think for example how was the monarchy in France before 1848.

Post-French Revolution, the rich tend to be on the king's side, because socialism and similar ideologies threaten them both.

Pre-French Revolution, that often wasn't the case. The rich tend to want to increase their own power, which is bad for the king's power, so weakening the super-rich so that they can't threaten his position is a viable strategy.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Pre-French Revolution, that often wasn't the case. The rich tend to want to increase their own power, which is bad for the king's power, so weakening the super-rich so that they can't threaten his position is a viable strategy.

The demands of the common people are useful for neither meaning that they will be together on this one and the nobility was the one who was causing problems to the king, the industrials who will rise thanks to the industrialization of France won't be as rebellious.

 

[da Racontor]

The demands of the common people are useful for neither meaning that they will be together on this one and the nobility was the one who was causing problems to the king, the industrials who will rise thanks to the industrialization of France won't be as rebellious.

If people always act rationally & in their best interests. But that's not always the case.

In fact, Louis XV did make a huge gesture to the common people. The restoration of the parlements were supposed to be for the common people. The fact that it didn't actually do what was intended is a discussion for another time.

Also, France just prior to the revolution may have been an absolute monarchy on paper, but it certainly was not one in practice. Otherwise both Louis XV & Louis XVI would have had their tax reforms, which the nobles kept annulling, pushed through.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Also, France just prior to the revolution may have been an absolute monarchy on paper, but it certainly was not one in practice. Otherwise both Louis XV & Louis XVI would have had their tax reforms, which the nobles kept annulling, pushed through.

That's because they didn't knew how to use it, they simply didn't have the will power Louis XIV had.

 

[da Racontor]

That's because they didn't knew how to use it, they simply didn't have the will power Louis XIV had.

I completely agree.

However, by that same token, it is unfair to call France in this age an absolute monarchy.