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: