Q/How - Industrialism without Colonialism

[absentminded]

So this is more a general question to be used in putting together a timeline (for a paradox game mod) than a specific timeline.

How could industrialism happen in a timeline without colonialism and what shape would it take.
historically, the industrial revolution was possible in the manner it happened due to the vast wealth in europe brought through colonial exploitation and slavery. So, in time lines without either of those incomes, would the technologies (if we take them as inevitabilities that they would be invented eventually) be implemented as to create industrialism?
And from the lack of colonial and slave labour in primary industries, no cheap resources. So you might expect sewing machines and home spinning frames rather than vast textile mills as there would be no cheap cotton to buy in bulk.

Say for sake for supposition, the same inventors happened as historically, steam engine and cotton gin turn up on set dates.
In a europe poor, or alteast a europe with only it's native wealth, could those technologies have major impact?
Lead to the development of anything resembling mass industrialisation? some sort of centralised corporatism rising to take advantage of the machines or even somehow lead to industrial capitalism?
Sit in theory, too large for implementation until its miniaturised to be the spark of some revolution in cottage industry and the rise of a society based around small machines and rising technology but no mass production?
A world where industrial technology spreads but tied to concepts of it being small scale, shorten work and save labour as pre-industrial developments in milling did, doing the same work in less time not producing excess goods for sale.

Or would such a setting be better with imagining the technology achieving nothing in europe initially but as it arrives in China or nations in India or some unknown to OTL native confederation in our americas and find there the first large scale application? Mass Industrialisation born outside of europe and shaped to a different model of society, becoming global on those terms?
Industrialism manifesting the same way, just elsewhere?

 

[Socrates]

I will post more when it's not NYE but your basic proposition is untrue. The vast majority of the wealth came from the increased land productivity via the agricultural revolution in England.

 

[absentminded]

I will post more when it's not NYE but your basic proposition is untrue. The vast majority of the wealth came from the increased land productivity via the agricultural revolution in England.

Of course there was much wealth behind it from that and even the likes of the dissolution of the monasteries atleast for england, but aren't they well, just drops in the water compared with the looting of whole continents?
If you take away empire from Britain, you'd be taking away the dominance of trade and rule of the seas too. And then well, an agricultural revolution in england leaves it as what?, a wool producing island off the coast of france. How many of those increases in land productivity came from investments gained through colonial wealth, or enclosures?
And can there be enclosures and clearances without colonies to dump the cleared in? and colonial wealth to give the elites the power to kick the peasants off the land without strife anyway? and then without the clearances do you have the cheap labour or the cheap wool/domestic primary goods to make mass production affordable anyway?

Even if it was plausible for europe, why ever would it be Britain to lead it without the colonies and triangle trade to fund it? and provide cheap enough raw goods to justify it?
England was well off in the middle ages sure, but not to the same extent as after and agricultural advances carry to the continent to those places with more land and better growing conditions to benefit from them, and to unexploited rest of the world as well

also, thanks for the interest in the thread

 

[Chrestomanci]

So this is more a general question to be used in putting together a timeline (for a paradox game mod) than a specific timeline.

How could industrialism happen in a timeline without colonialism and what shape would it take.
historically, the industrial revolution was possible in the manner it happened due to the vast wealth in europe brought through colonial exploitation and slavery. So, in time lines without either of those incomes, would the technologies (if we take them as inevitabilities that they would be invented eventually) be implemented as to create industrialism?
And from the lack of colonial and slave labour in primary industries, no cheap resources. So you might expect sewing machines and home spinning frames rather than vast textile mills as there would be no cheap cotton to buy in bulk.

Say for sake for supposition, the same inventors happened as historically, steam engine and cotton gin turn up on set dates.
In a europe poor, or alteast a europe with only it's native wealth, could those technologies have major impact?
Lead to the development of anything resembling mass industrialisation? some sort of centralised corporatism rising to take advantage of the machines or even somehow lead to industrial capitalism?
Sit in theory, too large for implementation until its miniaturised to be the spark of some revolution in cottage industry and the rise of a society based around small machines and rising technology but no mass production?
A world where industrial technology spreads but tied to concepts of it being small scale, shorten work and save labour as pre-industrial developments in milling did, doing the same work in less time not producing excess goods for sale.

Or would such a setting be better with imagining the technology achieving nothing in europe initially but as it arrives in China or nations in India or some unknown to OTL native confederation in our americas and find there the first large scale application? Mass Industrialisation born outside of europe and shaped to a different model of society, becoming global on those terms?
Industrialism manifesting the same way, just elsewhere?

The Industrial Revolution was not caused by Colonialism but instead competed with it. Both increased the resources available to European nations, but in opposing ways.

Steam engines were made viable by the close proximity of coal and iron ore within Britain and the demand for steam engines was initially driven by the need to pump water from mines. Without the alternative colonial sources for metals, demand would have to be met entirely from European mines. Steam engines (and other mining technologies) would advance faster as deeper mines become the only source of ore.
Without the Colonialism cotton would remain a costly Indian product, with the British textile industry remaining wool and linen focused. The industrialisation of the textile industry would occur decades later, but develop slightly faster with inventions being split two ways not three. The cotton gin would be invented in India at a much later point.
Military technology would be advance at a greater rate, as the only enemies faced by European nations would be other European nations with similar technology.
Mass production would be adopted far more quickly. Machinery is used when the cost of the machine is lower than the cost of labour. Without cheap foreign labour providing competition to early machine tools, they would see use at a more rapid rate.

Structural problems with European economies were often papered over (notably by Spain) with colonial wealth. Without gold from the Americas, the European governments would be forced to face financial problems at an earlier point rather than ignoring them and allowing them to grow. If successful at managing their economy monarchies could remain in power, if not revolutionary governments could occur earlier.

Intellectual capital utilised by colonialism would instead be used to further industrialisation, resulting in the Industrial Revolution occurring at a faster rate. Educated individuals who departed Europe in order to build a better life for themselves in the colonies would instead remain within Europe and improve technology.



The most important question is what prevented Colonialism in your timeline?
The lack of Colonialism means a faster Industrial Revolution, but many POD that delay Colonialism will also delay the Industrial Revolution.

 

[WotanArgead]

It is unlikely - for industrial empires markets are needed.

 

[Arkenfolm]

India was a nice competitor for Europe, and the fact the British destroyed and looted Bengal, one of their strongest competitors in textiles, really helped early industrialisation. Of course, it helped that India as a whole was undergoing a period of severe warfare with the Maratha-Mughal wars and such.

India is a different venue of European colonisation than what was going on in the Americas (all the precious metals and gems looted from the land, the sugar plantations) and Africa (the triangular trade).

 

[Padilla]

It is unlikely - for industrial empires markets are needed.

It depends really. Metallurgy and heavy industry could have developed independently perfectly,specially in Europe. Light industries like the textile industry would have definetly stagnated. Also when chemical industries appear Europeans would need to expand somewhere to get oil,or maybe all petro-chemical industries might never exist in the first place.
Also the Columbian exchanged was extremelly important for population growth as the introduction of all the new crops allowed peasants to get a better diet.
A industrialized Europe without petro-chemical industry would be extremelly deforestated,moreso than now, as wood would probably replaced plastic in most cases and with a lot of emphasis on heavy industry and coal. Maybe renewable energy and nuclear energy is discovered earlier but I am not sure about that.

 

[longsword14]

It is unlikely - for industrial empires markets are needed.

Tell that to the Germans.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I often read that the industrial revolution, especially the technological progress, have only be possible due to the accumulation of capital gained in the colonial enterprises of the 17th and 18th century.

 

[WotanArgead]

Tell that to the Germans.

First, Tanzania, Namibia, Cameroon and the Pacific Islands.
Secondly - the Zone of influence in China, and the railway Berlin - Vienna - Istanbul - Baghdad - Basra - Kuwait.
In the third - the First World War was fought for the expansion of markets and access to cheap labor.

 

[Padilla]

Tell that to the Germans.

Germany had the biggest coal reserves at the time and a lot of iron. Industry came to Germany because all the developments that the British did in the textile and transportation industry which increased the demand of coal and industry equipment which was made with iron.

 

[longsword14]

Germany had the biggest coal reserves at the time and a lot of iron. Industry came to Germany because all the developments that the British did in the textile and transportation industry which increased the demand of coal and industry equipment which was made with iron.

This round-about claim is very tenuous if you are trying to find a strong reason behind industrialization. You may shift the initial jump off point from country to country, but the main cause for rapid growth of industries is native.
You can remove colonies and still have industrialization, only different, but a different, backwards Europe with colonies is definitely not going to grow as it did.

First, Tanzania, Namibia, Cameroon and the Pacific Islands.
Secondly - the Zone of influence in China, and the railway Berlin - Vienna - Istanbul - Baghdad - Basra - Kuwait.
In the third - the First World War was fought for the expansion of markets and access to cheap labor.

Germany was already industrialized before it got into the loss-making business of colonialism. It did not have any colonies during its most important phase of development.
Colonial interests were not even of secondary importance for the start of WWI. 1914 was after the most tense phase of colonial problems had passed away.
People always get the cause--->effect arrow in the wrong direction.

 

[absentminded]

its not just proximity to coal and iron, but a demand for them.
Plenty of the world had the resources sitting there, often with the idea of steam engines or etc devices beside them without industrialising because to them it was not worth it, you need to see wealth the right way, have the right sort of economic and social pressures, labour without economic security so willing to become a wage labour force but governments or elites with the security to invest, cheap goods and a desire for more, to value profit and have the infrastructure in place to make use of it.
Without the merchant class, who's going to buy the goods? serfs and freemen? the small class of nobles? and without the empires and trade between them, is there a thriving merchant class? and thats just one condition of the oh, untold thousands? If industrialism was inevitable just from waterlogged coal and iron, then the answer is easy, every corner of the world industrialises on it's own and meets up to compare notes. But, that's not how it worked.
All the social shifts, rise of centralised governments and trade centred economy that historically were fueled by colonialism, maybe not started but certainly sped and sustained. Those things were all coming since atleast the renaissance if not the late middle ages and cemented by the reformation and economic changes following the black death but, without that influx from colonies and trade would that path be sustainable? or collapse, burst and be replaced but something else or a version of what came before?
I'm going to suppose that they must as assuming centralised and structured nation states and capitalism makes things easier than all the what ifs and what elses. but, is it reasonable to do so?

As for germany question, you don't need the colonies to benefit from them, the whole of europe benefitted from what spain and portugal were bringing home. trade exists in europe, innovations gained spread and so does the cash. Germany didnt need to personally rule colonies or personally own ships in the triangle trade to be built on the shoulders of those who did. isolation isn't history's friend.

As for the what the PoD is, I'm not sure yet. Either the earliest colonies were such critically failures and so much invested lost on them that they gave up trying and wrote them off as a fools errand, the explorers being better men who wouldnt come back with exploitation exploits to share and inspire others or just something spacebats like magically the columbian diseases didn't happen and no one died so europeans arrived to find thriving states ready to fight back, slow crusader states attrition style colonies established that died out slowly draining time, wealth and manpower out of their homelands as they went?
Essentially, american colonies either fail expensively or just dont happen, then without them europe doesnt have the wealth to empire elsewhere or get that boost into military technology supremacy so you can get a world where the europeans more or less just stayed where they were and let the rest of the world be so you can end up with a world where europe isnt richer or more powerful than everyone else and didnt remake it in its image. Contact and trade so spuds, trains and horses end up everywhere and technology can be recognisably modern, but without all the empires, death and subjugation.(The Crusader states are probably a bad example as while they famously failed they werent heavily invested in but the home nations or really colonies in any real sense, but the idea of how theyre failure was slow and lead to such an exchange of ideas and the expansion of trade is a theme to follow.)
I have a fairly solid premise of how the map looks in the 20th century but still working on how it got there.

p.s. its near 3 in the morning. this post will probably have grammar issues.

 

[Padilla]

This round-about claim is very tenuous if you are trying to find a strong reason behind industrialization. You may shift the initial jump off point from country to country, but the main cause for rapid growth of industries is native.
You can remove colonies and still have industrialization, only different, but a different, backwards Europe with colonies is almost certainly not going to grow as it did.

I am not saying it is not possible. I am just saying that there needs to be an incentive to do so. Germany didn't industrialize just because. It industrialized because it had lots of resources that the world market needed. Industrialization might happen because scarcity of some minerals like gold or silver but most of the industries that we currently know wouldn't even exist. You might end up with a really primitive industrialization that focus mostly on mechanization and metallurgy and it would probably be a selfdestructive if medicine advances as much as in OTL

 

[longsword14]

I am not saying it is not possible. I am just saying that there needs to be an incentive to do so. Germany didn't industrialize just because. It industrialized because it had lots of resources that the world market needed. Industrialization might happen because scarcity of some minerals like gold or silver but most of the industries that we currently know wouldn't even exist. You might end up with a really primitive industrialization that focus mostly on mechanization and metallurgy and it would probably be a selfdestructive if medicine advances as much as in OTL

Well, there is nothing definitive about this TL then. The scientific development of Europe along with its technological growth has at least made it plausible even in this TL for formation of crude, initial industries. Growth might be slowed because of different financial institutions but should not be non-existent.

 

[Padilla]

Well, there is nothing definitive about this TL then. The scientific development of Europe along with its technological growth has at least made it plausible even in this TL for formation of crude, initial industries. Growth might be slowed because of different financial institutions but should not be non-existent.

I mean things like steamboats and trains are extremelly doable but the industrial revolution require:

1. Agricultural revolution
2. Medical revolution
3. Cheaper manufactures
4. Leaving cottage houses for industries

For all of this to happen without colonization,contact with India and an empty continent to move all the excess population you would just have XVIII century Europe with better ships,machines and trains

 

[Socrates]

Of course there was much wealth behind it from that and even the likes of the dissolution of the monasteries atleast for england, but aren't they well, just drops in the water compared with the looting of whole continents?

No, not at all. India contributed about 5% of the UK's invested capital at its peak. Most of the money went back into pacifying India. The West Indies contributed more, at 30%. Quite simply loot and pillage isn't that sustainable a source of profit. Even the 30% is misleading if you don't understand economics. Try reading up on the Solow investment model. Because depreciation of capital happens at a constant rate and the returns to invesment are diminishing (you get less out of every extra dollar you invest), a society's capital actually ends up a steady state level regardless of what level of capital you invest. What actually matters in determining that steady state is your quality of governance and level of technology. This is why places like Ireland, Iceland and Finland are more successful these days than colonisers like Spain and Portugal. Resources stolen from abroad only give you about a 20-30 year boost before depreciation works away.

If you take away empire from Britain, you'd be taking away the dominance of trade and rule of the seas too.

No, you don't. Britain had naval advantage, despite a small population, because it was an island country with a resulting mercantile culture. As its population increases through greater agricultural productivity, that advantage becomes supremacy. The island geography also saves money on an army that can be channelled to a navy. The Dutch banking innovations also allow a better fiscal state post-1688. I would also point out that most of Britain's trade was with continental Europe until well into the 19th century, and after that the independent Americas surged ahead. The problem with exploiting people via colonialism is that they stay poor and don't have much money to buy your stuff.

And then well, an agricultural revolution in england leaves it as what?, a wool producing island off the coast of france. How many of those increases in land productivity came from investments gained through colonial wealth, or enclosures?

Virtually none from colonial wealth, given the agricultural revolution happened before colonialism. Enclosures helped a bit, but mainly in England where the fertile land was. Enclosures aren't colonialism. As for your question, an agricultural revolution leaves Britain as a centralised state with an advanced fiscal system, well defended natural borders, a major source of natural resources, a sustainable source of capital production, an urbanised society with a workforce freed from the land, a constitution that prevents the government from being extractive to the domestic economy, and an effective channel for those with new sources of wealth to join the governing elite.

And can there be enclosures and clearances without colonies to dump the cleared in? and colonial wealth to give the elites the power to kick the peasants off the land without strife anyway?

Yes. They went to Britain's cities primarily in our timeline. Fewer going to the colonies means more going to the cities and a greater and cheaper workforce for industrialisation. Although raised mortality rates would likely limit this effect.

Even if it was plausible for europe, why ever would it be Britain to lead it without the colonies and triangle trade to fund it? and provide cheap enough raw goods to justify it?

As described above, the funds came mainly from agricultural surplus and even a reduced starting capital stock will cease to matter after a couple of decades by higher net return rates for your existing capital.

 

[Socrates]

I often read that the industrial revolution, especially the technological progress, have only be possible due to the accumulation of capital gained in the colonial enterprises of the 17th and 18th century.

It's a well publicised myth, but one that causes eye rolls among economists that study it.

 

[interpoltomo]

China industrializes first, Europe stays backward. No colonialism there.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

It's a well publicised myth, but one that causes eye rolls among economists that study it.

I wonder what's wrong with this theory. I remember reading it at school in my former history book.