I didn't say that the Chinese state would embrace that, I said that it would be beneficial for it to do so. The attitude that merchants are parasites is the kind of attitude that China needed almost as much as throwing bananas.
But the problem was simply that these ideas simply were not going to beat out from the Chinese conscious without the kind of dislocation China had between 1840-1900 OTL. While they may have been wrongheaded, The Chinese state simply had a vast level of power to enforce it's own system and it took a lot of effort to displace that power.
The Qing were worse then the Ming.
Sure. And the Song are centuries past (by the Ming), and they can easily be painted as having failed - "obviously" the solution to what happened because of their most un-whatever-ly activities is to embrace the classic ideals more tightly etc..
But that's not an inevitable response.
It's not inevitable, but it's a much more difficult change than you might think it is and would require a very different set of situations than the ones that led to the Ming dynasty.
You really don't understand how China works. For centuries, the Confucian ideology that was followed by the Chinese state tended to look down on Merchants because they were felt to be bad to their families and leeches on the farmers and artisans. The Ming, coming off a rather Laiseez-faire Yuan dynasty, had a tendency to follow the Confucian ideology rather closely. Confucianism was also the same reason why they didn't follow up on Treasure Ships; in the eyes of the Confucian scholars, the only purpose of those ships was to show to everyone how mighty and benevolent China was, any trade issues were of secondary importance, if they were considered at all. And this segues into how the Chinese state regarded trade. Confucian ideology generally stated that China had everything it could ever need, and any trade conducted with outside states would be done solely on Chinese terms, as a privilege that could be taken away at any time.
How so? (on the underlined part) My knowledge of what exactly was going on there is pretty scanty - I have a general sense but not why those circumstances would need to be very different.
And so what? The religious and cultural background of Christianity and the Church's hierarchical structure also discouraged trade and finance. Yet the Renaissance started in the Italian city states. Ming Dynasty China had most of the ingredients required for an indigenous Industrial Revolution: a state more laissez-faire than most of Europe, large trading networks and what we'd call corporations, a secularization of Confucian philosophy, and plentiful natural resources. It's entirely possible that the private sector would perfect the crucial components of the Industrial Revolution: steam engine, *Spinning Jenny, telegraphs, railways, while these developments were being ignored by the state as cute playthings. Until, that is, even the most conservative mandarins in the Imperial Court cannot ignore their usefulness in controlling their empire.
All the professions in Europe were organized into officially recognized guilds - China lacked these. It was also common practice for European kings to grant monopolies to their friends - again, China lacked these. Taxes on commerce and farm produce were in the low single digit percentages - the lowest among virtually all organized states in the world. And naturally such ultra-low tax rates strengthened the merchant clans at the expense of the state. To claim the Chinese state was monotonically powerful all the time is simplistic.Was it really more laissez-faire in terms of its impact on merchants and trade (specifically)?
One disadvantage of China vs. Europe in the Confucianism vs. Christianity - there is no single authority figure able to dictate to all of Europe. The Pope? Will be ignored. The (Holy Roman) Emperor? Is even less able to do something. And those are the two most universal-in-theory rulers within Europe.
All the professions in Europe were organized into officially recognized guilds - China lacked these. It was also common practice for European kings to grant monopolies to their friends - again, China lacked these. Taxes on commerce and farm produce were in the low single digit percentages - the lowest among virtually all organized states in the world. And naturally such ultra-low tax rates strengthened the merchant clans at the expense of the state. To claim the Chinese state was monotonically powerful all the time is simplistic.
The idea that the Vatican had the ability to do anything about trade even within Italy is grossly misleading, however. Papal ability to enforce anything sucked by comparison to what a Chinese Emperor could do.No one in Europe was as untouchable as the Chinese Emperor, but the Chinese saying goes that "the sky is high and the Emperor is far". Even today, the Politburo's decrees are openly flouted by lower level officials. But those who claim China's religious and cultural roots are hostile to capitalism should be reminded that Medieval Catholic dogma was probably even more hostile to finance and trade, and despite this the Renaissance first emerged in Italy, where the Vatican had most influence.
The guilds of Europe often had the backing of a royal letters patent, which *is* government policy. In addition a monopoly is still a restriction on commerce. Some of China's dynasties relied on state-owned monopolies for the bulk of their revenue (including it seems the reigning one), but not the Ming.Not having guilds is not the same as government policy being laissez-faire, and monopolies were granted and revoked pretty much as kings saw fit - not to mention that even the most long lasting monopoly is still a monopoly only within a small part of Europe.
I spoke to one of the most prominent experts in Chinese economic history. He's spent much time dissuading the notion that the Chinese state has always been all powerful.Would love to see the source on the tax issue - I'm not arguing, just trying to acquire information.
Europe lacked a powerful emperor, yet its religious heritage also constrained the development of capitalism. Otherwise, the Church would not have banned usury among adherents, and then frequently whip up pogroms against the Jews all across Christian Europe. It's stupidly simplistic to blame large trends on one or two easy explanations.The idea that the Vatican had the ability to do anything about trade even within Italy is grossly misleading, however. Papal ability to enforce anything sucked by comparison to what a Chinese Emperor could do.
The guilds of Europe often had the backing of a royal letters patent, which *is* government policy. In addition a monopoly is still a restriction on commerce. Some of China's dynasties relied on state-owned monopolies for the bulk of their revenue (including it seems the reigning one), but not the Ming.
And this would be who?I spoke to one of the most prominent experts in Chinese economic history. He's spent much time dissuading the notion that the Chinese state has always been all powerful.
The Church's ban of usury had little effect in the era we're looking at, and I'm not sure how much the Church as an organization whipped up pogroms - the Crusades era ones were at most (in terms of Church involvement) on the level of individual preachers, not commands by authority able to enforce its will.Europe lacked a powerful emperor, yet its religious heritage also constrained the development of capitalism. Otherwise, the Church would not have banned usury among adherents, and then frequently whip up pogroms against the Jews all across Christian Europe. It's stupidly simplistic to blame large trends on one or two easy explanations.