smallpox

Seems to me I'm debating on several fronts in this forum. Rather than repeating and juggling various threads concerning historical precedents and how they apply to modern day issues, I thought I'd outline my knowledge of global history and set the record straight.

Industrialization and Democratization:

Who started industrialization and who propelled it? Well, industrialization was not a government created revolution. It started in England in 1787, not by a central authority, not by rich aristocrats, but by the contribution of a few, innovators and investors. Capitalists, middle class people referred to as "Bourgeois" by Marxists. The invention of the water power spinning loom increased production of textile and kick started what is now known as the industrial revolution. Then came the idea of increase productivity through machinery in other sector by innovators like Watt -- who could pump water out of mine 5x faster with his new steam engines -- and Henry Cort -- who could make iron out of pig iron.
These advances were propelled by what is now known as Pigouvian subsidies. The economic of France, many German states, Belgium, England (and latter the USA) were all done at the most decentralized manner beyond these subsidies. England already dropped mercantile monopolies for domestic markets and the Parliament had utmost authority over the English -- not a dictator.
Japan industrialized during the Meiji restoration. While it still had elements of old Japanese oligarchy in its working the regime embodied many of the enlightenment ideals and workings which Chinese nationalists seem to oppose. The Charter of Oaths in 1868 (the first Japanese constitution) allowed for such things as natural laws, specialization of labour and foremost the right for public discussion and involvement in the political system. Further there were political parties present -- the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party -- during the restorations. Even though the less "liberalist" Progressive Party won the influence of the government, it still allowed for an equal distribution of power between the lower (Diet) and the upper house of parliament and a further separation of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch. While not ideal, it was still ahead of the current workings of the CCP. Further, Japanese decentralization prevailed in the monarchy by the introduction of Genros to replace the Daimyos.

Imperialism in China:

It's easy to blame the "west" for everything poor, evil, unpleasant and bitter in this world, but how easy is it to see and acknowledge faults outside the "west"? Western imperialism was only a result caused by domestic problems in China. When the first westerners arrived in China, they were limited to small companies in Canton and had to live on a small, agricultural-less island named Macau. China being the most powerful nation of its time during the Ming Dynasty was a fortress to anyone who did not establish diplomatic relations at the start of the Ming Dynasty (old Imperial Chinese rule of not recognizing countries unless it had diplomatic ties at the beginning of the Dynasty). China was confidence of its eternal supposedly static economic dominance and meritocracy and did not "need" to entertain ideas of trade with "barbarians" (anyone except the government involved in international trade was immediately labeled a pirate in China, even though most were actually Chinese).
Well this is similar to me drawing a big colour full bullseye on my forehead and going on the front of any war. China should have see what was coming. 1800's colonial economics was VERY different from its age of discovery predecessor. A local government in colonies was preferred to rule their own country as long as free-market in practice rather than running a country which was nothing more than an expense. The ultimate goal of this second wave of colonialism was to open foreign trade (which ultimately benefits everyone). By refusing any foreign trade outside mercantilist crumbs in Canton, the government was sure to make a lot of enemies. If open trade was allowed from the start, silver would have still proven a far better trade token by the English and they would have never resorted to opium. Now, I'm not advocating what the English did, it was wrong, but it was only causal to the policies of autarky and meritocracy. The proof of these intents is made quite evident in historical documentation:
- The Treaty of Nanjing (after the opium war) had only one main focus in exchange for peace; opening trade relations by decreasing tariffs and opening more ports to foreign firms for commerce.
- After the Chinese imperial government conceded to open their market, and after the Open Door Notes put forth by the Americans, foreign government actually armed and supported the Chinese government against such problems as the Taiping Rebellion and withdrew imperialist competition in the area.

Of course, arrogance and nationalism blinds the masses and so it was thought that industrialization could be done "half-ass" with mottoes like "East for essence, west in practice". I'm all in favour of cultural heritage but culture DOES NOT have to be isolated (this causes more harm and conflict than fixing anything) and unfortunately at the time, meritocracy was a part of "east for essence" and meritocracy and those who achieved a status through meritocracy were the driving force against the 100 days reform and the imprisonment and eventual execution of the Emperor Guangxin.
Now I didn't include this so that we can sit around and play the blame game. Fix the problem, not the blame. This is a perfect illustration of why Chinese-style meritocracy and centralization mixed with liberalism does not work out ultimately for China or for any other countries. The whole point of this thread is that I see it happening all over again, in the proclamations and post of these roaming Chinese nationalists around here.
Learn your lesson, autarky and political uniqueness is not beneficial in the long rung.

smallpox

The Benevolent Dictator Myth:

I keep getting these "but he did it" fallacious arguments. Not only is it logically wrong to assert things like "because Bismark did it, this must work out for China's benefit now" but it's ignoring yet another historical precedent. While most realist nationalists LOVE historical precedents and have nothing else to support their claims, they should actually have a look at the whole of history rather than picking and choosing historical events.
First of all, yes Bismark sure did it. Good for him, that one arm General sure did use Realpolitik to his advantage and we saw the creation of a strong, industrialized united Second German Empire for the first time since the Holy Roman Empire. He demonstrated a superb performance of political will and he sure tricked Austria and France to his own advantages.
Second of all, yes Japanese military imperialism sure pulled a number in Asia and dominated it for its own advantage, or so it thought (I'll expand on that below).
First thing's first: Bismark, that little fox and swindler. He is the example of the "benevolent" authoritarian social planner that so many countries dream for. He increased industrial output and created a country. BUT happened to this industrial output and country in the long-run? It collapsed with him after WW1 when the might of collective interdependence was proven victorious in a war situation and liberal economic development proved greater to produce industrialized goods and standards. The Bismark example just shows that authoritarian planning while it can have amazing immediate result does not prove a) SUSTAINABLE in the long run, b) MORE BENEFICIAL in the long run. I guess the maxim "slow and steady wins the race" really applies in the case of economic development. The German war machine proved incapable of keeping up with its liberal Allies counterpart.
The Japanese example during WW2 illustrates the very same lesson BUT adds another lesson to the bunch. Japan thought that acquiring land in China and the Pacific island and having a united "Asia" East Asia would ultimately bring advantages and benefits to the resource poor island. What Japan learned was that it had been actually CHEAPER to trade with the locals of their territories when they were independent than running up a colonial upkeep bills. This shows the ultimate power of comparative advantages in the free-trade market and why China does not NEED colonies to follow a "western" like model (even though it should be referred to as a social axiom model). The world is already open to free trade; the WTO includes virtually every country in the world.

Parisyann

Very interesting thread. I hope many people will learn as much out of your knowledge, which you generously outlined here, as I did. Thank you.

__________________
History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake - Ulysses, James Joyce.

smallpox

Thanks, but few responses so far....I think I scared away "Luke" for a while.
Oh well I can use it as a copy and past source for further debates.

orange dave

Rehashed propaganda. Economic security was not the main reason for Japan's colonization of Asia, which was much more gratituitously brutal than any of its European counterparts. Their relations with Asia should be seen in the same context as their relations and attitudes towards America, that caused the Pearl Harbor attack - i.e. a pure (haphazard) quest for power.

Cole

Industrialisation generally causes drastic social upheavals, to the extent that Europe was at a time at risk of workers' revolution / rebellion, when Marxism found strong appeal.

The Opium War will always be remembered as the ploy to force the weak Qing dynasty to open its doors. China was self sufficient and perhaps competitiveness could have resolved the unfavourable terms of trade but some western powers chose drugs and military force.

Several factors including internal power struggles and social awakening culminated in the 1911 Revolution that overthrew dynastic rule and the subsequent Communist revolution. The need for change resemble correction of gross imbalances in the market, a matter of degree.

Imperalist is a term that should be applied to the perpetrators and not to be used loosely without substantiation.

Japanese conquest in Asia, was no different from the Nazis expansion in Europe, driven by sheer ambition and power as evident from well documented practices of cruelty and brutality. This was noted by Orange Dave who has read history.

Nation-building takes decades if not centuries. There is no "perfect" model of good governance and social reforms. Any model will have to be tested and adapted to local conditions and times. We do not need to tout nor dismiss any particular model but adopt an open mind since these are just "forms" and humans are flexible. Many countries in the developing world are finding their way and adapting to successful models. Patronage is not going to add value to real support.

What does generosity mean? Crumbs? High time those who professed to be wealthy and humane genuinely give more to those in need.

Brendan O'Neill: Bring on the Chinese

pug_ster

Thanks for your prespective. I might want to add that China at its height in the 18th century was still a very closed society, thus introverted. Whereas the extroverted Western countries at the time want to exert its influence to China was the cause to China's downfall.

I find it today that China exhibits the same problems 200 years ago. IE, in today's China's industrial age, they produces alot of the stuff we buy but has a Western Brandname. But when we look at chinese brands, many Westerners considered Chinese goods are considered second rate because they don't know the brand. In order for China to be considered as economic superpower, they must establish chinese goods as first rate. For example, when Levono bought IBM's trademark name for its desktops and laptops, it is considered one of the best move they have ever made. I hope more Chinese companies put an effort to do the same, either by establishing their own brandname or buying other companies IP.

smallpox

No, the Americans cut their supply of ore to Japan and so brought many incentives for Japan to invade Manchuria (considering they acquire the Laiodong peninsula in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki and promptly gave it back to China). It's not at all a coincidence that Japan went for iron rich Manchuria first. I agree that it was not all economically driven, but economy was a big part of it and this still serves to demonstrate that colonizing is not a profitable business in the long run.

smallpox

Forced industrialization does, but the invisible guiding hand of the free market minimizes tensions when in democracy. England had much less social unrest than Germany when industrializing, consequently Germany was authoritarian.
Outside Russia, Europe found little appeal to Marxism considering the circumstances. During WW1, the Spartacus League had very little influence, even though the proletariat was doing horrible. The Communist party during the Wiemar Republic had what? 12-15 % of the Reichstags at any given moment? The Communes de Paris were established long before the second wave of industrialization. Seems to me Marxism was appealing especially to decolonized agrarian societies rather than industrializing ones. Industrialized nations went the way of social welfare programs and unions (not at all what Marx was calling for, in his Manifesto at least).

China was not self-sufficient. For every 1 or 2 magistrates there were thousands if not millions of struggling peasants. "Competitiveness" always results in higher productivity and is always beneficial to both parties.

There are no imbalances of markets unless governmental monopolies, taxes, intervention and subsidies, which imperial China was not shy in using on those cities not opened to the "west" (AKA the poor majority of China).

Imperalist is a term that should be applied to the perpetrators and not to be used loosely without substantiation.

Has read history? Anyways this argues nothing.

The only way governance can adopt to local uniqueness and respond to local issues is by having the local people decide the governance for themselves -- democracy. Anything else has been extensively proven wrong. It's not like even Lenin could escape the very true axioms of liberalism during his New Economic Deal.

Depending on charity is not even close to the benefits of trade.

smallpox

Introvert/extrovert are psychological terms to mean the level of dangerous behaviours. Although I understand what you meant, the "West" was unfortunately not the cause of Chinese downfall. I'm sure the conflict of open trade vs. China's autarky was not good for the Chinese state and monopoly, but most economic struggles during the Qing dynasty were self inflicted, as I have argued.

That use to be the case for Japanese goods, but now the opposite is true. Though innovation and progress has flourished better when critical thinking is encouraged -- and this by definition needs all government barriers to speech to be taken away and a stop to applying filial piety to everything as Confucian cultures often do. There's nothing wrong in disagreeing with your teacher, as a matter of facts it's a good thing (that was at the centre of Marxist conflict theory, why China has not adopted it is beyond me).