StarDestroyer.Net BBS

China as we all knew never entered a true Industrial Revolution. While the Qing dynasty or even the Ming had industrial cottages, with the Qing creating arsenals and importing steam engines, they never truly entered an industrial revolution where industry would form the mainstay of manufacturing. This even though similar trends to what occured in Britain such as urbanisation, as well as exposure to available technologies and the consequences of failing to do so was present.

Similarly, countries such as Russia delayed their entry into the Industrial Age due to various reasons such as the vast space involved, inferior infrastructure, relative lack of private and public funding and political resistance by the aristocratic class.


So, the question is, what factors might had significantly delayed, or even killed off the Industrial Revolution in countries such as Britain, France, Germany and the USA? These are all nations that profited significantly from the early adoption of industrialisation and its arguable that Britain Great Power status emerged entirely from the fact that she industrialised first.
For example, could had a late adoption of the potato crop delayed the urbanisation movement in Great Britain? We do know that the potato faced significant resistance from elites in France, with advocates suggesting that it was the devil crop.
Similarly, what would had happened if Pasteur, Germ theory or vaccinations had been prevented from occuring? The resistance against vaccinations raged on long into the 19th century, and indeed, into the modern age, propelled by christian resistance against doctors acting against God will. It was this improved sanitation and medical facillities that finally made cities stable and self sustaining communities, one that didn't require constant influx of peasants from the countryside to maintain its numbers and productions, what if delays had made cities a negative population influence? Could this had killed off the productivity of centralised factories?

What other major political or social factors do you think existed?

Interesting; but consider the spread of technique and concept- consider how the practical advantage to the nation (NB; not to the workforce, more on that in a moment) became obvious and the techniques and methods were consciously imitated, and the various brakes on that- faulty espionage, national pride, dubious employer-employee relations- it seems very much to me as if the british industrial revolution was the exception, and was deliberately imitated.

Industry is the improbable case, not the other way around. Look at the factors that made the industrial revolution, and see how much difference their absence would have made, and I suspect the answer would be in there.

One factor; war at sea. The first businesses that employed a hundred men, the first to employ a thousand men, and I believe the first to break the ten thousand man barrier also were naval dockyards, and they incorporated the first systematic production lines and first machine tools in the world.
The money and organisation it took to make a navy spilled back over into the civilian world through the dockyards and the victualling service. China never sustained that.

Vaccination is a major factor in quality of life- in persistence of life, really- but it's absence did not halt the industrial revolution. That is, the absence of quality of life. Supposedly, the life expectancy in the worst slums of Sheffield in the 1840's was down to nineteen years. (When I try to remember the source for this, the name that keeps popping up is Friedrich Engels. Sorry.) The worst time and place, barring a few warzones, that there has ever been to live- even neandertalers did better than that.

To be honest, I'm not sure whether the industrial revolution thrived because of the law or because of it's absence, in cities unrepresented and barely policed. The crime aganst humanity that constituted midlands tenement housing should never have been permitted, but would the industrial revolution have been possible without treating the workforce like shit?

A workforce prepared- or with no choice but- to submit to being used and abused would seem to be essential. Acts of Enclosure and Clearances drove the best part of a generation, and an entire class of peasant-proprietor, off the land and gave them a choice of starving to death quickly, or being worked and polluted to death slowly.

Until the widespread installation of sewers, during the first growth phases of the industrial revolution, cities were negative population factors, and did depend on a constant influx of peasants. Without that being there, if the land remains available, no industry. Who would be poisoned to death at nineteen, if they had a choice?

In britain, by and large, the old aristocratic order bought into the new ideas, and arguably helped poison them at source, by adding an element of stubborn resistance to change that proved a drawback, and eventually fatal when moving into the later phases of the industrial revolution.

Their capital was important, to begin with, and especially right now it is worth remembering that once upon a time- for most of the last three hundred years- stock markets were a good thing. Without the free movement of capital, it is difficult to set up factories.

I'm sure this thread's going to run.

Besides the important reasons cited above consider the importance of a culture of learning for a industrial society. Europe had the beginnings of a modern education system going by the 19th century. Many famous pioneers held university posts or were linked to one somehow while rest of the world had nothing that resembled a modern university. This let them share and collaborate in a way not seen elsewhere. I doubt there existed a formalized schooling system even. Neither did the rest of the world have the beginnings of modern scientific culture inform of journals, publications, societies etc. I believe that without a large number of educated thinkers and a system for constantly churning out scientists, engineers, teachers etc the industrial revolution would not be feasible. Thus in order for the industrial revolution to fail there had to be a mass cultural rejection of the academia that built up in Europe leading up to the 19th century.

PainRack wrote:So, the question is, what factors might had significantly delayed, or even killed off the Industrial Revolution in countries such as Britain, France, Germany and the USA?

German industrialization could have been significantly slowed, had Prussia been in some way crippled during the 19th century and been unable to push the Zollverein (an economic customs union that embraced most of Germany) or unification. For example, if at the Congress of Vienna, Prussia had become isolated and the Great Powers had decided not to give it such a prominent role in the settlement, and had instead opted to make non-Austrian Germany a patchwork. More below.

These are all nations that profited significantly from the early adoption of industrialisation

In fact Germany was a second generation adopter. This in part was beneficial, because it meant that when it began to mobilize production in earnest (late 1870s early 1880s) it was building up a fresh industrial plant with benefit of modern technology, so it was overall more efficient than first adopters. If German unification had somehow been preempted, there would have been no large state on which to base this industrialization, and it probably would have remained minimal.

and its arguable that Britain Great Power status emerged entirely from the fact that she industrialised first.

Britain's predominance in the Victorian Era emerged from its early industrialization, but it had always been a great power since the 16th century. Even before industrial production it had a dominant position at sea and a quite strong one in finance.

For example, could had a late adoption of the potato crop delayed the urbanisation movement in Great Britain? We do know that the potato faced significant resistance from elites in France, with advocates suggesting that it was the devil crop.

Not really possible. The potato was so self-evidently a wonder crop that it saw rapid adoption by the peasantry everywhere it appeared. Maybe several years of blight immediately following its adoption in Europe would sour people on it from the outset, but this wasn't exactly likely.

Similarly, what would had happened if Pasteur, Germ theory or vaccinations had been prevented from occuring?

Nothing, urbanization and industrialization predate widespread vaccination. The early industrial period had a lot of turnover, but improvements in agricultural production around the same time supplied a constantly renewing manpower pool. Barring a serious plague, this was a hard trend to reverse. A lot of the concepts that underlie the industrial revolution are hard to shake because they're self-evidently the better way to do it. With mechanized looms one worker can do the work of twenty--any businessman with a brain will start using them.

Sarevok might have the right idea, though. Arguably, one reason that Asian countries did not develop industrialization first was due to Confucianism, which denigrated merchants and the making of money and (under the neo-Confucian system) meant that the primary end purpose of education was becoming a civil servant.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:One factor; war at sea. The first businesses that employed a hundred men, the first to employ a thousand men, and I believe the first to break the ten thousand man barrier also were naval dockyards, and they incorporated the first systematic production lines and first machine tools in the world.

A small nitpick and I'll leave it at that because I do not want to derail the thread - the first modern businesses. There were ancient businesses which employed thousands of people, like the mines, latifundiae, the imperial fabricae and the huge construction companies.

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:Interesting; but consider the spread of technique and concept- consider how the practical advantage to the nation (NB; not to the workforce, more on that in a moment) became obvious and the techniques and methods were consciously imitated, and the various brakes on that- faulty espionage, national pride, dubious employer-employee relations- it seems very much to me as if the british industrial revolution was the exception, and was deliberately imitated.

Well as mentioned, the Industrial Revolution never did take off in China despite inducements to do so. While Chinese chauvinists blamed the Western powers for continuing to impoverish china during the end stages of the Qing, and indeed, the KMT government,resistance to even an industrial attitude simply outlasted the Qing dynasty.
The destruction of China modern arsenals and the Allied Powers expedition during the Boxer revolution capturing the more economically prosperous areas of China did kill off the beginnings of industrialisation, but it was already teetering on the edge.

Industry is the improbable case, not the other way around. Look at the factors that made the industrial revolution, and see how much difference their absence would have made, and I suspect the answer would be in there.

One factor; war at sea. The first businesses that employed a hundred men, the first to employ a thousand men, and I believe the first to break the ten thousand man barrier also were naval dockyards, and they incorporated the first systematic production lines and first machine tools in the world.
The money and organisation it took to make a navy spilled back over into the civilian world through the dockyards and the victualling service. China never sustained that.

Are you suggesting that one of the factors for industrialisation was the modern way of organising labour and resources? If so, didn't such models already exist, both in Russia, China and Italy, which were relative late-comers to the Industrial Age?

Vaccination is a major factor in quality of life- in persistence of life, really- but it's absence did not halt the industrial revolution. That is, the absence of quality of life. Supposedly, the life expectancy in the worst slums of Sheffield in the 1840's was down to nineteen years. (When I try to remember the source for this, the name that keeps popping up is Friedrich Engels. Sorry.) The worst time and place, barring a few warzones, that there has ever been to live- even neandertalers did better than that.

I read similarly low estimates of 30 odd years. Would such constant labour turnover as well as the ineveitable backlash by elites owning the labour force cause a reversal? After all, the nobility still need labourers for their estates. The focus on pasturisation and increased "efficiency" and profits from estates in Ireland, which in conjunction with laws from Parliament aggravated the potato famine faced significant contest both from conscience stricken political elites as well as the costs and labour force requirements.

German industrialization could have been significantly slowed, had Prussia been in some way crippled during the 19th century and been unable to push the Zollverein (an economic customs union that embraced most of Germany) or unification. For example, if at the Congress of Vienna, Prussia had become isolated and the Great Powers had decided not to give it such a prominent role in the settlement, and had instead opted to make non-Austrian Germany a patchwork. More below.

Was the unification of Germany a given? I wonder if history might had tore up the states and prevent unification......
But then again, wouldn't the free flow of capital from Britain had still allowed for copycat industrialisation?

Pablo wrote:In fact Germany was a second generation adopter.

Oops. My mistake. thank you.

Not really possible. The potato was so self-evidently a wonder crop that it saw rapid adoption by the peasantry everywhere it appeared. Maybe several years of blight immediately following its adoption in Europe would sour people on it from the outset, but this wasn't exactly likely.

It won't be the first time we seen cultural attitudes delay the adoption of technology.......

Sarevok might have the right idea, though. Arguably, one reason that Asian countries did not develop industrialization first was due to Confucianism, which denigrated merchants and the making of money and (under the neo-Confucian system) meant that the primary end purpose of education was becoming a civil servant.

It gets more complicated than that..... By the era of the Qing dynasty, neo-confucianism was both a pillar of state as well as a threat, as it threatened to move political and military power away from the Manchus to local born Chinese elites. The weakening of the 8 Banner armies against the local Confucian Chinese armies during the Taiping Revolution had political repercussions, even as it accelerated the adoption of Confucianism.

Sarevok wrote:Besides the important reasons cited above consider the importance of a culture of learning for a industrial society. Europe had the beginnings of a modern education system going by the 19th century. Many famous pioneers held university posts or were linked to one somehow while rest of the world had nothing that resembled a modern university. This let them share and collaborate in a way not seen elsewhere. I doubt there existed a formalized schooling system even. Neither did the rest of the world have the beginnings of modern scientific culture inform of journals, publications, societies etc. I believe that without a large number of educated thinkers and a system for constantly churning out scientists, engineers, teachers etc the industrial revolution would not be feasible. Thus in order for the industrial revolution to fail there had to be a mass cultural rejection of the academia that built up in Europe leading up to the 19th century.

Interesting...
But just to play devil advocate, wasn't formalised schooling in Western Europe a result of mercantilism?

PainRack wrote:Was the unification of Germany a given? I wonder if history might had tore up the states and prevent unification.

The current trend in historical scholarship suggests that Bismarck's unification was accidental. That is, he set out to increase the power of Prussia by using his famed "political realism" and the chain of events led without conscious intention to unification. Some people argue that German unification was an inevitable logic that followed from economic principals; personally I don't believe it.

But then again, wouldn't the free flow of capital from Britain had still allowed for copycat industrialisation?

To some extent Britain actually sucked capital from Germany before unification, because German firms were unable to compete with British manufactures without government protection. This can be seen in the collapse of the German textiles industry in the 1840s. And again, had it developed in the context of a number of small and divided principalities, German industry would not have developed on a very large scale, because each of these individual national economies would have lacked the critical mass for a large industrialization movement. Certainly some level of ad hoc development would have occurred but it would have paled in comparison to what happened in Germany historically.

It won't be the first time we seen cultural attitudes delay the adoption of technology.......

We're not talking about technology, remember, we're talking about food. Potatoes are the most efficient crop. They produce large amounts of food per acre, can be stored for long periods of time, and perform very well in Northern European climates. They became a staple from the bottom up. Subsistence farmers quickly found that they could grow huge amounts of potatoes even on rather small plots; such that even an area that was practically garden-sized could sustain a family. To illustrate, the Irish were some of the poorest people in Europe and they had a very poor position with respect to land tenure (good land having been seized for Protestant landlords and most families having small plots). This led them to invest very heavily in potatoes, in effect adopting them not just as a staple but as nearly the sole source of their sustenance.

What you're suggesting is that, because a handful of aristocrats didn't like potatoes, millions of subsistence farmers will choose to grow wheat and have less food, rather than grow potatoes and have more food. It doesn't scan.

But just to play devil advocate, wasn't formalised schooling in Western Europe a result of mercantilism?

Not really, no. "Formalized schooling" in Western Europe derives from the high middle ages, with the universities and the continuity of these institutions is illustrated by the fact that some of them have been in continuous operation since their foundations (e.g. the University of Bologna has been around since 1088 CE). The dissemination of basic academic skills in the population at large (as opposed to a small minority of specialists) probably goes back to the Protestant reformation and the concurrent development of movable type printing in the 16th century. Literacy became both more desirable and more attainable as a result of these events.