Q/How - Industrialism without Colonialism

Idly questioning if historical changes could lead to things developing into a different end product is supported on this site. It becomes arguing ideology when unrealistic development paths are chosen because of opinions.

You have stated what is happening in your alternative history, but completely lack detail as to why it occurs.
Absolutist corporatism as the dominant political/economic system - How does it differ from OTL? what caused it to be dominant?
Mercantilism having been hamstrung by the premise - Isn't the premise is no colonialism, how is that reducing Mercantilism?
slowly being replaced by a proto-industrial corporatism - What is proto-industrial corporatism?
cottage industry in the early 19th century - What delayed the western European cottage industry?
large scale industrialism -What is large scale industrialism?
maybe India - Many possibilities exist in India, maybe if the early Mughal Empire successfully reformed itself preventing it's decline it could have had an Industrial Revolution instead of falling
industrialism being implemented mostly by governments - How and why?
so more centralised and restrictive - Why?
prioritising heavy industrises over consumer goods - What are the heavy industries producing?
development of major liberal economies - Occurred post Industrial Revolution, it was not a "root of industrialism"
states being more dictatorial and centralised than in our OTL as a consequence of this form of centralised industralism - What is centralised industralism? And how does it make states "more dictatorial and centralised"?
Likely household and leisure innovations lagging behind compared to OTL but militarily slightly ahead of things if the vast majority of industry has been controlled and driven by states instead of business? - Possibly, but what makes that happen?
I'd say global markets develop the same but more regulated and protectionist outlooks on the whole? -Why?
So leaning dystopia as that works better for the story in mind. - The story you have in mind seems very interesting.


I can't really see how the question, would industrial technology fail to institute major changes if introduced into a society that lacked the concepts or ability to utilise them as we did, is 'choosing unrealistic options because of opinion'. Unless we accept as fact that our historical industrialism is the only inevitable outcome of those technologies and anyone presented with them would figure out how to develop the same systems and methods we did, which seems alot to me more like an unreleastic opinion based choice than saying maybe they'd have the machines but fail to apply them in any efficient or society changing way.
Historically having a technology and completely missing how best to use has been pretty common after all. How many times were steam engines invented before the right idea about what to do with them for industrialism happened?

As to the timeline
'Absolutist corporatism as the dominant political/economic system - How does it differ from OTL? what caused it to be dominant?'
Absolutism corporatism and Mercantilism are the modern terms for the two dominate economic/political systems of the 15th-18th centuries. In OTL intercontinental trade and the rise of britain and holland saw mercantilism 'win out'. It's a fairly simple supposition that if there was less trade, or trade still coming through the muslim routes, no triangle trade or atlantic trade to gain an edge for mercantilist states, the absolutists could end up the more powerful. Perhaps France taking Britains place while still also having its own?. Absolutism had dominated in the late middle ages after all and kept going as a minor thing until the 19th, so without rising trade to oust it, why not.
We can probably assume a wealthier Ottomans and Persia if they would still be controlling the spice trade into europe?

'Mercantilism having been hamstrung by the premise'
Mostly covered above, if we say the historical drivers of it have less wealth through cutting out european trade abroad, especially having the triangle trade and european control of the Indian ocean gone then there goes many of the conditions that put it in front.

'slowly being replaced by a proto-industrial corporatism - What is proto-industrial corporatism?'
Wholly fictional, if absolutist corporatism is the dominant system instead of mercantilism then early industrialism would be absolutist corporatism with added machines. So it's just, absolutist corporatism but industrialised as a clumsy way of industrial innovations still happen at roughly the same pace just owned by absolutist state guilds or etc instead of businessmen. Have the technology but still the pro-guild monopolies and putting agricultural production first outlooks.

'cottage industry in the early 19th century - What delayed the western European cottage industry?
You're quite right and nothing, was a clumsy way of saying still dominates into, rather than already being supplanted by the rise of the factory system.

'large scale industrialism -What is large scale industrialism?'
Against just clumsy wording, meaning the traditional OTL industrial revolution, factory system, urbanisation, etc. as opposed to merely applying industrial technology to tradition, 'outdated' methods without the major changes, replacing trying to fit machines into existing systems of production to the industrial revolution of building new systems built around the machines actually reach the full potential of them.

'maybe India - Many possibilities exist in India, maybe if the early Mughal Empire successfully reformed itself preventing it's decline it could have had an Industrial Revolution instead of falling'
I was also thinking the Mughals or else a successor state that replaces them while being more stable owing to being hindu? Or just owing to being a clean slate. Reforming and saving the mughals feels alittle, save all the famous empires and keep all the names thing that in AH its too easy to fall into.

'industrialism being implemented mostly by governments - How and why?'
If Absolutism is still the dominant political and economic system, only they'd have the wealth to do it or else they'd quite likely (as some tried historically) ban anyone else from trying within their borders.
Perhaps Mughal or etc Industrialism could be otherwise? Or the idea of industrialism being under strict state control could come from them and then take a long time for anyone to think to challenge it?

'so more centralised and restrictive - Why?'
From being state monopolies under powerful absolutist states all coming from that first point about absolutism winning out over mercantilism which is probably the main PoD different for half these bullet point ideas over the one in the title.

'prioritising heavy industrises over consumer goods - What are the heavy industries producing?'
Military equipment, steel construction and infrastructure, ships. I'm thinking Industries that serve the state and the army dominating, with consumer goods industries lagging behind? The flip to OTLs dynamic. state guilds in absolutism were often treated as services and expected to provide the goods the state needed rather than make a good profit. Maybe practical/efficient over aesthetic would happen sooner? If theres less competition more focus might be put into producing at a lower cost than a product people would buy over others.

'development of major liberal economies - Occurred post Industrial Revolution, it was not a "root of industrialism"'

Again clumsy wording on my part, I was meaning the likes of 18th century britain as compared to absolutist france that would be even more absolutist in this line rather than modern liberal. The root of industralism in this line being state-guilds and monopolies rather than investors and private industry and competition.

'states being more dictatorial and centralised than in our OTL as a consequence of this form of centralised industralism - What is centralised industralism? And how does it make states "more dictatorial and centralised"?'

This one is answered by the earlier ones. If industrialism is brought in with state monopolies and under the control of absolutist states, would get more powerful and richer, centralise and industrialise more and get more powerful and richer and etc.

'Likely household and leisure innovations lagging behind compared to OTL but militarily slightly ahead of things if the vast majority of industry has been controlled and driven by states instead of business? - Possibly, but what makes that happen?
I'd say global markets develop the same but more regulated and protectionist outlooks on the whole? -Why?'
These two are the same, just, following the logic of what if absolutism came out on top and all that follows comes in its image, what if it's implemented by states in state-guild monopolies for the service of the state? looking dictatorships and absolutism from our history they tend to put their militaries first so we could expect more funding and more innovation and the brightest minds on that front while other sectors would fall behind. And both the absolutist and corporatist systems are built around protectionism and basically demand it.

'So leaning dystopia as that works better for the story in mind. - The story you have in mind seems very interesting.'

Thanks
 
Last edited:
The British economy was hemorrhaging silver at a rapid rate because of the massive trade imbalance between the United Kingdom and the Qing empire. This removal of money out of circulation was destructive to the health of the British economy, and British industry as a result. The British ruling class, industrialists and all, understood how bad the situation was and came to the same conclusion that the US came to after WW2; markets must be forced open, or kept open, at all costs. They already had such a scenario with the EIC, and decided to extend that status to the Qing so as to remove that massive disparity in trade.

The opium wars, specifically the unequal treaties which were the resultant product, served the sole purpose of opening up markets for British industry.

By the time of the opium wars, Britain was already the world's leading industrial economy.
 
Have to agree with the broader picture around pretty clear independence of many industries (heavy industries) from colonialism with no resource chain and the lack of importance to colonial accumulation. Bigger issues for industrialisation without lack of early colonialism would seem to be more if butterflies preventing cultural trends in innovation and culture in Europe taking place, but that's really hard to discuss, because its really close to random, and I don't think think we really have a good (hard) idea to the connections between the two.

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.

If we avoid colonialism by having Europeans do everything in our TL, except developing the merchant fleets of large ocean going ships, then you sort of don't have India as a competitor exactly, and rather its textile related export industry to Europe driven to absorb trade just doesn't develop, because there's no trade with Europe. (Similarly for China with its export oriented industry.) International trade and colonialism were two sides of the same coin.

If you do have trade, and Europeans are just unable to establish political control (weaker armies?), but everything else in terms of scientific thought, innovation, literacy, etc. still develops as in OTL, then it seems kind of difficult to avoid the advantage in India shifting towards some form of raw cotton exports and finished production for the domestic market as in OTL.

Rise of import substitution in Europe was probably not not dependent on political control; with or without political control you would still see crafts industry in Europe built around wool and linen and earthware respond to Asian competition, with a complement of productivity advantages from innovation built up in preceding centuries (within and outside those industries).

Once you have industrious revolution and undersupply of goods to European markets (with a class with relatively high disposable income), and agricultural revolutions increasing productivity in agriculture, inevitable that a relatively large crafts production industry develops in parts of W Europe. This will respond to competition, and there's no fixed disadvantage in anything other beyond actually growing the cotton (which is fixed by nature), and quite a few arguable advantages for technology and productivity.

(Indian rulers could respond by blocking exports of raw cotton, but firstly, not clear why they would want to follow that policy or see any advantage to secondary rather than primary goods exports, esp. if they were tied to agricultural landlords, or face political risks of implementing it, and secondly, Europeans would probably respond in kind with more tariffs and exclusions).

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

Would recommend checking out Koyama's recent "Could Rome have had an industrial revolution?" article that has been doing the rounds recently - https://medium.com/@MarkKoyama/could-rome-have-had-an-industrial-revolution-4126717370a2. Not just a professional academic economic historian discussing / doing a very brief bit of alternate history (to a limited extent) but really an introduction to the general ideas around the origin of the industrial revolution and briefly discusses why ideas of colonial accumulation as key to industrial revolution not popular among economic historians.
 
So, I got this from Quora from someone that asked " Did colonialism contribute to the industrial revolution in England?" And these were the answers.
Absolutely, primarily in that colonialism + slavery + sugar + tea generated vast fortunes that had to be invested somewhere, and the brand new factories were the obvious choice. Colonialism also gave Britain a huge captive market for their industrial goods, and since they had the largest colonial Empire, their industrial growth was supercharged.

Of course, the opposite is true too. The massive growth of Britain's Empire was fueled by the Industrial Revolution, as Britain sought exclusive access to raw materials and ever more captive markets for its industrial output.

.Yes, raw materials came to England from the colonies and were converted into manufactured goods. Those manufactured goods were then sold to British and European citizens and back to the colonies where the raw materials originated.


.It helped. The purpose of colonies is to make money via trade. Colonies created overseas markets for manufactured goods in the home country, and they provided raw materials that were needed at home. North America was a good source of wood for shipbuilding, for example.
 
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?
Colonialism came from Industrialism, not other way around.
 
Have to agree with the broader picture around pretty clear independence of many industries (heavy industries) from colonialism with no resource chain and the lack of importance to colonial accumulation. Bigger issues for industrialisation without lack of early colonialism would seem to be more if butterflies preventing cultural trends in innovation and culture in Europe taking place, but that's really hard to discuss, because its really close to random, and I don't think think we really have a good (hard) idea to the connections between the two.



If we avoid colonialism by having Europeans do everything in our TL, except developing the merchant fleets of large ocean going ships, then you sort of don't have India as a competitor exactly, and rather its textile related export industry to Europe driven to absorb trade just doesn't develop, because there's no trade with Europe. (Similarly for China with its export oriented industry.) International trade and colonialism were two sides of the same coin.

If you do have trade, and Europeans are just unable to establish political control (weaker armies?), but everything else in terms of scientific thought, innovation, literacy, etc. still develops as in OTL, then it seems kind of difficult to avoid the advantage in India shifting towards some form of raw cotton exports and finished production for the domestic market as in OTL.

Rise of import substitution in Europe was probably not not dependent on political control; with or without political control you would still see crafts industry in Europe built around wool and linen and earthware respond to Asian competition, with a complement of productivity advantages from innovation built up in preceding centuries (within and outside those industries).

Once you have industrious revolution and undersupply of goods to European markets (with a class with relatively high disposable income), and agricultural revolutions increasing productivity in agriculture, inevitable that a relatively large crafts production industry develops in parts of W Europe. This will respond to competition, and there's no fixed disadvantage in anything other beyond actually growing the cotton (which is fixed by nature), and quite a few arguable advantages for technology and productivity.

(Indian rulers could respond by blocking exports of raw cotton, but firstly, not clear why they would want to follow that policy or see any advantage to secondary rather than primary goods exports, esp. if they were tied to agricultural landlords, or face political risks of implementing it, and secondly, Europeans would probably respond in kind with more tariffs and exclusions).



Would recommend checking out Koyama's recent "Could Rome have had an industrial revolution?" article that has been doing the rounds recently - https://medium.com/@MarkKoyama/could-rome-have-had-an-industrial-revolution-4126717370a2. Not just a professional academic economic historian discussing / doing a very brief bit of alternate history (to a limited extent) but really an introduction to the general ideas around the origin of the industrial revolution and briefly discusses why ideas of colonial accumulation as key to industrial revolution not popular among economic historians.

You think that no part of all India would in turn attempt to respond to European competition? Or that they just wouldn't succeed? Certainly many were already attempting to do so in the military and revenue spheres and making considerable progress before being conquered.
 
Last edited:

longsword14

Banned
You think that no part of all India would in turn attempt to respond to European competition? Or that they just wouldn't succeed? Certainly many were already attempting to do so in the military and revenue spheres and making considerable progress before being conquered.
We can argue all day long, but we really do not have a clue.
Just to can this before it turns into another one of those discussions.
 
You think that no part of all India would in turn attempt to respond to European competition? Or that they just wouldn't succeed? Certainly many were already attempting to do so in the military and revenue spheres and making considerable progress before being conquered.

I think it's less favourable to competing without a bunch of butterflies, assuming something like OTL paths. Though it's not like Indian textile production didn't eventually become internationally competitive with Britain under British rule (unlike IRC various other countries that were only viable because of protection due to unfavourable combinations of productivity and labour costs, like US), apparently prior to Japan becoming the most competitive international producer. That could happen more quickly, happen with more lasting effect, or not happen at all in a no-colonialism in India scenario depending on the details.

I was really taking aim at the idea that, without colonialism, producers in Western Europe would continue to import finished textiles rather than raw cotton, whatever the changes in technology and productivity happen at the European end that are not exactly mirrored precisely at the Indian end (or even if they are, if tariff barriers and shipping costs combine with productivity to make it disfavourable). The idea that the you don't get an industrialised light textile industry on the the European end without political control, even if the productivity advantage is there. Really it's whether the potential productivity advantages and factor conditions and incentives are there to make production more competitive.

If Indian finished textile production does successfully compete earlier than it did, then depending on attitudes to trade (e.g. do you get protectionism practiced by countries preferring to protect finished textile production?), you could either get a Western Europe that deindustrialises on its cotton textile fabric production, and instead industrialises more intensively in all the other light and heavy industries or has a more service heavy profile earlier on. But that's not the same thing as an inhibited industrialisation like OP or the poster I quoted seems to suggest!
 
Top