Impact of China's rise in the world - Long term predictions (30-50 years)


Phead128

Senior Member
The fact that most european states were monarchies during the 19th century rather obscures a more subtle reality on the ground. Outside of Russia, the era of absolute monarchy in Europe was largely brought to an end by around 1850 as an result of longer lasting effect of the French revolution and Napoleonic war. The monarchs, while not powerless, generally had limited ability to influence the economic policies and legal developments of most states. The tradition of effective parliamentarianism in states such as holland, belgium, italy and germany was in fact fairly well developed under 19th century monarchies.

It would be reasonable to suppose the powers of monarchs were far more circumscribed, abd they were far more beholden to a truly elected parliment, during main parts of their industrialization than the strongmen in Taiwan and south korea during their industrializations, or the CCP central committee in china now.
Europe was already industrializing before 1850.
Industrial revolution occurred mainly between 1780's to 1850 when majority of Europe was still ruled by absolute monarchy.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Economic effects
Undergirding the development of modern Europe between the 1780s and 1849 was an unprecedented economic transformation that embraced the first stages of the great Industrial Revolution and a still more general expansion of commercial activity.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
Europe was already industrializing before 1850.
Industrial revolution occurred mainly between 1780's to 1850 when majority of Europe was still ruled by absolute monarchy.
not true. what you are talking about is the beginning of industrialization, not the process of industrialization. only England had begun to industrialize in the 1780s. The rest of Europe only began to industrialize after the end of napoleonic war, in a progressive fashion, starting with Belgium, than France, then Germany and finally Italy. The process of industrialization in large countries like France and Germany took 40-50 years, with the transition to industrialized economy not completed in France and Germany until 1880s and 1890s respectively, and Italy not fully industrialized even on the eve of WWI.
 

FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
Only the United States was a constitutional Democratic republic during it's industrialization period, but as an inheritor of the Anglo-Saxon industrial revolution legacy, vast land/resources, and slavery, it's industrialization experience is unique. Not to mention the powerbrokers were still rich white slave-owning elites, so it's not truly a diverse representative democracy.

If anything, the institution of slavery provided more of a barrier to industrialization, similar to how serfdom held the Russian empire back in terms of industrialization and development. Pre-Civil War US consisted of basically two separate and very different economies. Only the North was able to industrialize, while the South was primarily a plantation based economy that relied on exports to Europe. It would be incorrect to assume that slavery contributed to or facilitated industrialization in the US. Wealth and power were definitely not in the hands of the slave owners, and marginalization of the slave owning class was one of the primary reasons the South seceded from the Union.
 

Phead128

Senior Member
not true. what you are talking about is the beginning of industrialization, not the process of industrialization. only England had begun to industrialize in the 1780s. The rest of Europe only began to industrialize after the end of napoleonic war, in a progressive fashion, starting with Belgium, than France, then Germany and finally Italy. The process of industrialization in large countries like France and Germany took 40-50 years, with the transition to industrialized economy not completed in France and Germany until 1880s and 1890s respectively, and Italy not fully industrialized even on the eve of WWI.
Napoleonic war ended in 1815, and European monarchies was still around then. Ergo, European monarchies were instrumental in beginning/initiating/starting the Industrial revolution process. Also, even in 1870's onwards, the German Kaisers were very centralized and powerful authoritarian rulers.

The European monarchies (and early East Asian dictatorships) are far more centralized than Indian democracy today. That was my point.

If anything, the institution of slavery provided more of a barrier to industrialization, similar to how serfdom held the Russian empire back in terms of industrialization and development. Pre-Civil War US consisted of basically two separate and very different economies. Only the North was able to industrialize, while the South was primarily a plantation based economy that relied on exports to Europe. It would be incorrect to assume that slavery contributed to or facilitated industrialization in the US.
Are we reading the same post? I said US experience is unique, nothing about slavery facilitating industrialization.
Wealth and power were definitely not in the hands of the slave owners, and marginalization of the slave owning class was one of the primary reasons the South seceded from the Union.
Compared to Indian democracy, yea, early US was a lot less diverse with only rich white slave-owning men allowed to vote. The lack of diversity in the voting population means US wasn't truly a democracy representative of it's entire population (minorities included), which contrasts that of Indian democracy is more pluralistic.
 
Last edited:

gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
You have to split it between the First industrial revolution and the Second industrial revolution.

The First industrial revolution took place almost exclusively in Great Britain between the 1780s and the 1840s, and only began to spread towards a new other countries like the US, Belgium and the Netherlands by the 1830s-1840s. The essence of the First industrial revolution was mass manufacturing of textiles. Steam engines enabled the power loom which was continually improved until it reached its final state in the early 1840s which was in use in basically the same form for over 100 years. Other technologies associated with the First industrial revolution were gas lighting (from the 1810s), paddle steamers (1807), and iron manufacturing. Towards the end of the First industrial revolution the railroad (1830), photography (1839) and the telegraph (1844) started to take off.

The Second industrial revolution was led by the US and Germany between the 1860s and the 1920s. It was during this period when you saw most of the inventions we associate with modern life (except transistor-based electronics) come into being. Technologies associated with the Second industrial revolution are steel manufacturing (from the 1860s), oil and gas (from the 1860s), the theory of evolution (1860s), synthetic chemistry (1870s), the telephone (1870s), electric lighting (1880s), skyscrapers (1880s), automobiles (1880s), the germ theory of disease (1880s), motion pictures (1890s), wireless telegraphy/radio (1900s), powered flight (1900s), and rocketry (1920s). The period is traditionally said to end in 1914.

The Third industrial revolution is generally said to be the digital age with began with the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs in 1947, but really got going with the invention of integrated circuits and the MOSFET transistor around 1960. It is the first one that Asians have participated in to a significant degree, first the Japanese, then the Koreans and Taiwanese, and now the Chinese.
 
Last edited:

Phead128

Senior Member
Guys, all I'm saying is that industrialization began under European Monarchies and early East Asian dictatorships, and only afterwards did they become democracies. Whereas India is assbackwards as a democracy first, then beginning to industrialize.

Look at the forest, not at the trees.
 

FriedRiceNSpice

Senior Member
The Third industrial revolution is generally said to be the digital age with began with the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs in 1947, but really got going with the invention of integrated circuits and the MOSFET transistor around 1960. It is the first one that Asians have participated in to a significant degree, first the Japanese, then the Koreans and Taiwanese, and now the Chinese.
Wouldn't Japan have undergone industrialization during the second industrial revolution?
 

gadgetcool5

Junior Member
Registered Member
As far as political systems, the industrial revolution was associated with the rise of Western capitalism generally and the bourgeoisie class in particular.

Absolute monarchy as badly shaken across continental Europe by the Napoleonic Wars and never really recovered. By the end of the Revolutions of 1848 feudalism was basically dead across Western and Central Europe. The last blow was Alexander II freeing the Russian serfs in 1861. All European countries except Russia had some sort of meaningful representative legislature by 1914 with limited franchise.

> Wouldn't Japan have undergone industrialization during the second industrial revolution?

Yes but they were only copying Western technologies. Whereas in terms of electronics they actually achieved the leading edge and made new breakthroughs in the 1980s.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
Napoleonic war ended in 1815, and European monarchies was still around then. Ergo, European monarchies were instrumental in beginning/initiating/starting the Industrial revolution process. Also, even in 1870's onwards, the German Kaisers were very centralized and powerful authoritarian rulers.

The European monarchies (and early East Asian dictatorships) are far more centralized than Indian democracy today. That was my point.
that is also not true. The continentak European monarchies generally depends on landed rural aristocracy for their power and influence, as they had since the end of the western Roman Empire 1400 years before. The interest of landed aristocracy is generally opposed to industrialization because industrialization empowers the new urban bourgeois class and dilute the traditional prerogatives of the aristocracy. So in general, farsighted monarchies reconciled themselves to the inevitability of the bourgeois led industrialization, while more conservative monarchies struggled against the impulses of the bourgeois.

The parliamentarian tradition in europe was in part an institution conceived to restrict monarchical power so industrialization led by the new capitalist class and supported by the bourgeois can proceed.
 

Phead128

Senior Member
As far as political systems, the industrial revolution was associated with the rise of Western capitalism generally and the bourgeoisie class in particular.

Absolute monarchy as badly shaken across continental Europe by the Napoleonic Wars and never really recovered. By the end of the Revolutions of 1848 feudalism was basically dead across Western and Central Europe. The last blow was Alexander II freeing the Russian serfs in 1861. All European countries except Russia had some sort of meaningful representative legislature by 1914 with limited franchise.

Relative to Indian democracy, European monarchies (+elected legislatures) were closer to early East Asian dictatorships than they were to Indian democracy today at the time of beginning industrialization.
 

Top