Thanks to a debate I had in European History, we came up with these factors

Marxist Interpretation:

Of course its pure economical reason. China had a bigger population than other countries of the world, it's resources were better used agriculturally to feed this large amount of people. It was more financially reasonable to work this way than in business.

Weber Theory:

Chinese mainstream religions Buddhism, Confucianism, Legalism (not religion but still a school of thought), taoism were all focused on an individual's placement in society. Compared to Judeo-Christian religions which focused on individual "salvation" or in this case accomplishment. To stereotype, these Abrahamic religions allowed for the individual to flourish more than others.

Power:

Europe needed power to help its expanding nations. China had enough people to power everything using humans. Because Europe needed power, they had inventors who focused on such thus causing industrialism.

If anyone has anything to add, please do.

Some historians say that China didn't industrialize because its non-industrial labour methods were efficient enough thus did not need to be improved upon with an industrial revolution. So its kind of like the saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Also resources as well, Europe had colonies to get mass resources to fuel a large industry whereas China did not.

Also, China had enough market within it to support the businesses, thus businesses did not see the need to streamline their operations to make them more efficient and effective. Also, China believed that hand-made products were of higher quality as compared to machine-made products. Also, she believed that people would support higher quality products even if the hand-made products were of higher price (even if in some cases people would support cheaper yet lower or equal quality machine-made products E.G. umbrellas).

Funny that China is now known for taking the opposite route of making cheaper low quality products instead

So why didn't the ancient Jewish states industrialise? Why didn't any countries in the Islamic world industrialise? Why didn't Ethopia in East Africa, one of the most ancient Christian states in the world, more so than most European countries, industrialise? How about the European Middle Ages?

Cultural determinism in this case is unjustifiable.

Well it could still be that all, or more than one, of these theories are true and that they are all reasons for the Industrial Revolution's occurance and that their isn't just one school of thought that is right. So these ancient Jewish, Islamic and other states you mentioned may have believed in Judeo-Christian beliefs but they may not have had enough resources or innovative agricultural methods, like Europe had before the Industrial Revoltution, to free up enough people from farming and thus allowing them to work in industry. So you might see it as a state having to fill a number of conditions before an Industrial Revolution can occur instead of just 1 condition that makes an Industrial Revolution.

But I do agree with you that the reasoning of Weber Theory is a little hard to believe because its not like all Europeans were devout followers of Judeo-Christian values at this time because this was after the Enlightenment thus states in Europe were already secular at the time. I can remember the example of Napoleon, when he led France, chose to crown himself instead of having the Pope crown him to symbolize seperation of church from the state.

"But I do agree with you that the reasoning of Weber Theory is a little hard to believe because its not like all Europeans were devout followers of Judeo-Christian values at this time because this was after the Enlightenment thus states in Europe were already secular at the time. I can remember the example of Napoleon, when he led France, chose to crown himself instead of having the Pope crown him to symbolize seperation of church from the state. "

Perhaps that was one of the reasons? China remained confined by their religions, while Europe, through the separation of church and state, was able to expand past their limitations and boundaries in science and technology.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore - Don't forget that Europe was a continent of divided nations that were constantly in conflict...so innovation and technological advancement was necessary to their survival. Afterall, the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention."

Yea very true, China is the country that invented gunpowder yet the Europeans were the ones to refine it and incorporate it into their military better than the Chinese. The reason for this is like you said, Europe was a collection of nations that were constantly in conflict, consequently weapons were refined, improved and invented so that a nation could get the upper hand over their enemies. In China the need for creating or refining new innovative weapons was not as crucial since the weapons they already had were sufficient enough to defeat their enemies. So again we see the doctrine of "if its not broken don't fix it".

Personally, I think tracing modern historical developments to mellenium old philosophies is ridiculous.





I'm sure Nietzsche would disagree with that very much. He considers faith the most irrational and hypocritical thing ever created by humans, and Christianity the most detrimental religion ever created. Weber's theory is more likely an instance of the logical fallacy of the false cause. Read his "Anti-christ", and you'll have quite a different attitude.

Christianity tied into individualism? I doubt it, it's philosophy is extremely collective, with many cases in which it ties the individual as a body part(the eye, the nose, the hand, etc...) with the body. In fact, I can't really recall any major religion who focuses on the individual rather than on the collective. At most there are in-betweens.

I think China didn't industrialize because the officials don't care about inventions nor did China have a medium to share scientific inventions. Therefore, steam engine was never invented. Had the Chinese invented the steam engine and made it public knowledge, I'm sure would have been an industrial revolution. Be the way, did the Chinese use coal?

The two are unrelated. Nietszche analyses the moral tenets of christianism, and mostly in a catholic perspective. Weber explains the development of modern capitalism (ie the one which appears with the industrial revolution) by protestant ethics, ie the ideas of Luther and Calvin, which he opposes to their catholic counterparts. He tries to understand such phenomena as entrepreneurial spirit, rational organisation of work, free markets for work, contracts, from a sociological perspective, and makes a pretty good point in linking them to the Reform. This stems from a practical observation: in Germany (in the late 19th century) Protestants tended to do better businessmen than catholics. So it is not, like Nietszche, about faith, and the moral values it implies in general, but about changes in one dominant european faith (christianism), which cause a different way of looking at work, profit and money, and spurred economic changes (because it happened at the right period).

Whether this analysis can be applied to eastern societies remains to be seen (although some of his arguments about entrepreneurs can probably aply to China). Weber's thesis is quite compelling.

Francois

I would say that things change considering the fact the China had gone through many major events that changed its course like Eight powers carving up China, WWII, the Revolutions etc.

Luther's reforms were anti-traditional, which means that it was a negation of the past, not a continuation from a Christian "tradition" that spawned success.

Since thats the case, deep rooted tradition has no weight at all in the argument for causes. Since all revolution attempts at overthrowing past traditions, a culture rooted in a tradition can change any moment. There are also positive and negative aspects from just about any social, economic, or political systems.

Hmm, Luther is from the early 16th century, modern capitalism really develops in the 18th century, and Weber writes at the turn of the 20th century. By that time, in Anglo-saxon europe (Weber's subject matter), Protestantism is pretty much established, and had become a deep rooted tradition.

Besides, considering it a negation of the past seems a bit bold. On the contrary, most protestants considered themselves as the perpetuators of a christian tradition which had been lost on the catholic church (ie the secular authorities) somewhere in the late middle ages. Luther, for instance, always uses the word "christians".

But anyway, Weber does not pretend that modern capitalism is an "old christian thing", just a result of the development and establishment of protestantism, and its sociological impact on western economies.

In case someone is interested (sorry for pushing it, but it truly is a great essay), here's an online version of Weber's book (have a read, Warhead, I'm quite certain you're misunderstanding his thesis).
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/we..._eth_frame.html

And, for good measure, here are links to works by Luther
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l#a155

Francois

Necessity is the mother of invention. It requires much more than just the invention, but a necessity for the invention to be applied to everyday use in the society. China, for example, relied on cheap and plentiful manual labor, so they had no need to invent time saving agricultural machines. The opposite is true for Europe.

The Greeks invented the steam engine over 2000 years ago, yet they didn't use it except for toys.
The Chinese invented pistons, and like the Greeks, did not use if for anything significant.

Yes, the Chinese has been using coal for a long long time. ie. In the diaries of Marco Polo, he mentions the Chinese burning black rocks to fuel furnaces for china, metallurgy, heating, etc

I think one of the reasons why china didn't industrialize is because china was fairly self-sufficient at the time. We were able to produce all of our needs. British industrialized because of the growth of their Textiles Industry, and others followed seeing Britain's accomplishment. "In 1793, the Qing emperor agreed to receive an ambassador from England. The Englishman brought gifts of the west's most advanced technology-clocks, globes, musical instruments, etc. The emperor was not impressed. In a letter to england's king George III, he stated that the Chinese already had everything they needed. The were not interested in the "strange objects" and gadgets that the west was offering them."

Why would Marco Polo refer to the coal as something unknown like "black rocks"? The European by this time be already well aware of coal.

I might well have misunderstood his thesis, but I was not arguing against Weber personally in the first place; I am only responding to the argument of the post that was brought forward. And the post argues for a deep rooted Judio-Christian tradition of individual salvation which would inevitably lead to the protestant reformation and hence capitalism and industrialization opposed to the "society focused" tradition of Chinese religions. The post clearly indicate a time way before the protestant reformation as if its an inherirant Judeo-Christian tradition. My point was simply that competition is not an inherant part of any religion, but a product of historical development. Religion only serves as a tool, not a cause.



Its not a complete negation, but a negation nonetheless, even if on the subconscious level. Any reform by definition is a negation of certain aspects of the past.

No, the Europeans at the time did not know of coal. This was the 13th century - the Renaissance had not taken place yet.
Except for parts of Italy, Western Europe was still essentially a backwater continent ruled by feudal kings.



Here is a source:

"Polo commented on many Chinese customs, such as the mining and use of coal as fuel. Coal had not yet been used in Europe. Polo called coal black stones. He also marveled at the Chinese use of paper money, which bore the seal of the emperor. At that time, Europeans traded with heavy coins made of copper, gold, or lead. "

http://www.worldbook.com/features/explorer...arly_marco.html

The English used coal as late as 1,000 AD.

Oh ok I know whats confusing this whole thing. Europeans did know about coal but in the form of charcoal is what i'm thinking of. Mineral coal (coal in which you have to mine it like Polo talks about in your quote) on the other hand I think is what they didn't know about which was unknown to Marco Polo.


Yea mineral coal I'm assuming, Charcoal they've had since like the bronze age.

Generally it is a bad idea to revert to Cultural Determinism when there are more plausible and more proximate factors, such as socio-political ones.

At any rate, it is the sociological impact of the reformation that had an influence, not its religious aspects.

The primary drive behind the European ascendency in recent centuries, from a philosophical perspective, was the "re-discovery" of ancient Greco-Roman culture, not the reformation. This is a position that is held by most mainstream scholars in this field.

The Weber thesis has some point if it is understood in the sociological and limited historical sense, i.e. the sociological impact of protestantism in historical Europe.

However, it is clearly incorrect if it is to be understood in the sense that there is something intrinsic in protestantism in the universal philosophical sense that leads to capitalism, which all other religions and philosophies do not have. The very fact that many non-protestant countries, such as Japan, also became very successful capitalistic states (in the capitalistic sense) is a very strong empirical refutation of this kind of position.

In short, the link between protestantism and capitalism is historical and sociological, not intrinsically philosophical in the universal sense.

To state that in the universal philosophical sense, a certain religion or philosophy leads to capitalism while all others cannot is illogical.

I'm sure one can pick out certain elements in protestantism that apparently lead to capitalism, but it is also certain that one can pick out elements in protestantism that apparently hinder the development of capitalism. Furthermore, there must also be elements in other religions and philosophies that either appear to contribute or hinder the development of capitalism as well.

The historical evidence that protestantism might have had an influence on the development of capitalism in Europe cannot justify the universal philosophical position.

Ah, I see. Coal vs charcoal... >_<

The original point of my reply to this thread was to counter the incorrect position of Cultural Determinism. As far as this is concerned it is really irrelevant whether or not the Weber Thesis is correct, that is just a moot point.

The Weber thesis may or may not be correct, keep in mind that it is just the idea of one person, and even in the West there are a lot of criticisms against it, especially in recent years.

But this is really beside the point, since Weber's original thesis wasn't even cultural determinist in the modern sense. The original thesis was largely within the European context, in the sense of "reformed protestantism vs. traditional catholicism", Weber never even directly talked about East Asian culture, religion and philosophy. Thus to justify cultural determinism using Weber's theory is really just taking the thesis out of context.

Unfortunately nowadays some people do seem to take it out of context. You see some Christian missonaries using Weber's thesis or some closely related ideas to argue that protestantism must be intrinsically superior to traditional Chinese religion. This notion is ridiculous on many fronts. Firstly, as I said, even if Weber's thesis is somewhat true, it is only true in a sociological sense within a particular historical context, not in the universal philosophical sense. From an universal philosophical perspective, there are no less elements in Chinese Religion intrinsically that are conducive to the development to capitalism.

The very fact that non-protestant countries like Japan are now among the top richest states in the world, and others like India are developing very rapidly shows that cultural determinism in this case is simply unjustifiable. One can easily see how ridiculous cultural determinism is by considering the fact that one can simply reverse the argument and state that since Japan is now wealthier than most European countries, and Zen is an integral element of Japanese culture, there must be something intrinsic in Zen philosophy that is even more conducive to capitalistic development than protestantism is. After all, even if Weber's thesis is correct, just because protestantism was conducive to capitalism in the 19th century doesn't mean it will equally be conducive to capitalism in the 21st century, since 21st century capitalism is significantly different.

Secondly, even according to intrinsic Christian principles, one shouldn't promote protestantism in this worldly manner. Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this world." From an economical perspective Christianity is intrinsically more socialist than it is capitalist. So to argue that Chinese people should believe in protestantism using some kind of quasi-nationalistic argument, that it is more conducive to capitalistic development and therefore can make China stronger, is really quite appalling.

The idea that capitalism is based on protestantism in the universal philosophical sense is just ridiculous. One only needs to look at a single piece of empirical evidence: Most of modern capitalism are based on secular, not protestant values.

Whatever influence protestantism had on the development of capitalism is just historical, not philosophical in the universal sense.

They may think that way, but both you and I know that objectively speaking the ancient Christianity of the first few centuries AD is very different in many ways from the protestantism of Luther and Calvin.

In fact, many contemporary protestants acknowledge that their form of religion was somewhat of a re-invention, it is only the fundamentalists who insist that only their way is truly and correctly connected to ancient Christianity.

Hi scp,

I don't think Weber even thought of it. His thesis was to try to explain, in hindsight, how modern capitalism appeared in western europe, and to explain some of the characteristic features of western european capitalism at his time (from the organisation of work to a certain form of paternalism, which btw is not present in all forms of capitalism, capitalism is hardly a philosophical universal...). I certainly do agree that turning it into a match between religious doctrine (which is superior?) is a bit ridiculous.

Note though that this is hardly specific to Weber thesis... How many times have we seen, here or elsewhere, grandiose theories on (you pick one) why china was always peaceful, or ethnically tolerant, or continuous, or politically stable, or more advanced, or, well whatever, where the answer was "Confucius"? Or threads about how westerners are all a bunch of unsensitive racists (who btw are out to get our women), where the "solution" was "christianism". Ridiculous, yes, but typical too...

My explanations on Weber were only meant to debunk the comment that it was wrong *because* arabia didn't industrialise, or that it was opposed by Nietzsche.

This said, and to get back at the topic at hand, I do believe that sociological factors, which are related to the dominant philosophies/religions of the time, do explain why industrialisation happened in some places in the 19th century, and not in others. This does not amount to determinism, but does help understanding why certain countries took a certain path. Personally, I think the development of modern capitalism (more precisely the development of free enterprise, which was the basis of industrialisation) is somehow related to a change in "worldview", which began in europe during the renaissance, and culminated with positivism in the early 19th century: the idea that the Golden Age, instead of being in the past (whether Yao and Shun, or the Garden of Eden), could be in the future, and could be built by men, instead of being emulated. In philosophy, I think this trend led to such thinkers as Nietszche (the idea that 'man' is a bridge towards the superman). In Art, it was the fundamental idea of romanticism (whether Goethe, or Beethoven). In economics, it led to the idea of progress, upon which free enterprise grew.

For a number of reasons, this attitude seems to have developped earlier in western europe (and the USA) than in China, which did industrialise eventually. I believe cultural and geographical diversity, and political unstability did play a role, and that the sociological influence of some philosophies and religions (such as protestantism) did too.

Francois

Oh, certainly. But you could also make a good point that 13th century catholicism is very removed from the early christianism of the apostols, or st Augustine, or even the one of Constantine. This is why I spoke of perpetuation of a tradition. The whole question of the Reformation was whether the transformations of the Church (the secular institution) between early christianism and the late middle ages, corresponded to a "natural evolution", or amounted to a "betrayal of tradition".

Basically, I think the idea that protestantism is a reinvention is clearly conveyed by the word "reformation".

Francois

Just a note, I didn't bring in Nietzsche to "disprove" Weber by any means. I just happened to read his Anti Christ and thought that he had a very interesting theory.



I still haven't seen any concrete evidence that the Christian tradition has anything intrinsic which would naturally lead up to the protestant reformation. The concept of individual salvation is well pravalent in the basics of all religion. Needham even argues that Daoism is a very scientific religion. Since not only was its salvation not based on an afterlife, but an attempt at immortality and liberation in this life, which propelled a search for medical inquiry.

There are too many factors in history to trace any singular cause and effect. The society at large must be viewed holistically to better understand its development. And from what I see, intellectual creativity is just a product of geography and social systems.

Right, there are more than one vital causes for why something happened, but I was just stating that Weber was only one example, my other that people keep repeating was the fact that China had enough manpower to create all the material and all the merchandise they needed. They didn't need machines to help them. I also don't agree with Weber that for some reason Protestants would be more "suited" for industrialization than other nations. I think what he was trying to say though, was that in China religion and politics were still more intertwined than in Europe.

Well, Catholicism is fundamentally different from protestantism in this aspect.

Catholicism has a continuous tradition, a lot of changes to be sure, but it's still continuous.

Protestantism tries to return to the original state of the religion after 1500 years.

我英语不好，大略的看了一下讨论，似乎是关于“为什么中国没有发生产业革命(industrial revolution)”
大家都谈了很多，我想谈下自己的一点观点。

我个人认为最重要的一点是汉民族政权的的中断，也就是明朝灭亡，清朝建立。

在明朝的时候：
产业方面，中国经济已经有相当大的规模。在南方出现很多纺织工厂，有的工厂工人规模达到上千人，大量农民进入城市寻找工作。出现了各种新的生产工具，比如新式的纺织机，并出现了《天工开物》《本草纲目》等大量技术工具书籍。生产技术在不断进步。政府的税收主要来自商业而不是农业。更有很多技术专家和科学家出现。我记得有一本书记载着这样一位明朝科学家，他研究火药，并希望人可以飞翔，于是他设计了一个机器，上部为一个坐舱，一个成年人可以坐在上面，下部为喷射型火药装置，他希望通过这个机器让人飞起来！和现代的火箭原理非常类似，但以当时的科技，无法控制方向，降落更是个严重问题(那个年代可没有降落伞^v^)，所以他总是把自己摔个半死，这个发明也没有成功。我们从这个例子可以看出当时的发明家和科学家们是很活跃的。

思想文化方面，已经出现了一批民主思想理论家，比如黄宗曦。并出现了相当多的民主著作和理论，比如“民贵君轻”、“君为天下之大害”这样反对君主专制的著名言论。政府也没杀这些人，他们活得好好的，这说明当时的文化思想界是比较自由的。

政治方面， 当时的明朝政府，尽管皇帝依然拥有最高权利，但真正在维持政府运行的却是文官集团，类似于西方的议会。这也是为什么明朝出现很多平庸皇帝的原因——皇帝不必亲自处理事务，政府依然可以运行。比如明朝嘉靖皇帝十几年不上朝，国家依然运转正常。已经有了从君主专制向君主立宪制转变的倾向。

军事方面，首先我要说，明朝初期的军队绝对是当时世界上最强的军队，因为他们打败的是横扫欧亚大陆的蒙古军队。明朝军队的军队火药化程度非常高，各种大炮、炸弹、喷火器都非常普遍。我曾经看过一张明朝的军事清单，上面记载一个小军团3800人，每一个士兵都有一把火枪，并有几百门大炮。这绝对是当时世界上科技含量最高的军队。而闻名世界的长城，也是明朝修建的。(很多人都认为长城是秦始皇修建的，秦始皇确实修了。BUT现代存在的长城却几乎全部是明朝的建筑)
可惜明朝后期军队管理太松懈，精锐部队不多。另外最后有大量精锐部队叛变(吴三桂降清)。

如果明朝继续发展下去，又或者明朝灭亡了，另一个汉民族政权建立了，中国的经济、科技等各个方面都将继续发展。工业革命也一定会在中国发生！今天的世界将完全不是现在这样。(我并不是说中国会像英国那样侵略扩张，而是说中国的经济，科技文化会影响世界。这点从中国航海和欧洲航海的的区别中可以很容易的看出。)

很可惜！这样的情况没有发生。历史是残酷的，中国被满族人统治了，清朝建立了。
我必须说我绝对不是民族主义份子，我只是客观的评论。清朝的建立中断了中国的产业发展。
清朝对人民进行了严格的控制，15人以上的集会组织无论性质，一律以谋反罪处死。这导致了中国的工厂根本无法发展壮大。并实行重农抑商政策，限制商业发展。
思想发面，清朝的文字狱我想大家都知道。任何说了反对政府的话立刻会被全家处死，也就是诛九族。从此没人敢发表言论。
政治上，清朝的君主专制达到了中国历史的顶峰。皇帝一个人对任何事情都要管理。
军事方面，满族是游牧民族，崇尚骑兵文化，废弃了汉民族的科技军事发展。这样的结果是什么呢？一个几百年前军队就装备了大量先进火药武器的国家，在几百年后欧洲国家入侵时，居然还在用冷兵器骑兵列阵冲锋。欧洲士兵像射鸭子一样击倒了所有清朝部队，打败了中国。中国也就从此开始了一百多年惨痛的经历。

如果……如果……，虽然我知道历史没有如果，但我依然相信，如果汉民族政权没有被清朝中断的话，产业革命(industrial revolution)一定会早于欧洲在中国发生！

希望有懂中文的朋友帮我翻译成英文，我的英语水平只能简单阅读，谢谢~~~~！

Personally, i think the reason why China didn"t industrialize in the past was because the Qing Emperor did not wanted China to learn from the West, which resulted in the lost of many wars during the 19th century ie Opium War against britain.

In fact, all modern coal fields in England except one have already been exploited by the Romans. Oil was also used in medieval Europe, though first mainly for medical purposes, although for oil lamps, too.

Why Chinese didn't industrialize?

Very intersting topic but I think this question is not correct. You should ask: " Why did England industrialise".
In fact Industrial Revolution started in England during XVIII nor in other european conuntries nor elsewhere. After that a country could have chosen to emulate England or not.
What members wrote here is mostly true (economy situation, different thought etc.) but you can only say why happened and not why didn't, you can guess or write down suppositions (quite intersting too), anyway you'll never know.

I am in the process of translating jinxiao's post into English, so please be patient. He has a lot of good points in his post.

You make a interesting point ,babo.

My thought about this:

Since China had a system that used to work so well in the past, it will take longer for China to let go of the past, and embracing new ways for its future.

So today the country is industrialiing at a faster pace than any other countries in mankind history, including that of the latest industrialized giant, the US.

Side point: However, it seems that industrialization in the sense of how Old Europe or US did it no longer well applicable to nowaday new technological environments. New developed economies do it differently, such as Singapore, HK, Korea...while some old industrializzed European countries faltered - some part of Russia, Czcech, Slovakia, Romania, etc...

I have to agree with you. Even though all these what if's and why it didn't's are fun and very interesting to ponder about, we really can not know exactly the causes. We can make estimates or assumptions that are as close to the real story, but not quite. Especially for this topic, which I think is also endless like the Han vs Rome thread. It's quite hard to compare when you have two different places that operated on slightly different rules and techniques throughout most of history.

In the end, that's history. We just have to keep learning and investigate more if we want more information, and accept what happened or did not, and move on.

Complete Chaos at home with the Civil War and all....and Mao and his Cultural Revolution There was a failed attempt at industrializing I guess.... The Great Leap Forward --Which was a complete and utter failure

I believe there are several factors that are important. The development of early industries in China up to the Tang Dynasty did develop many of the characteristics of industrialization more advanced than in the west. Mass production, and assembly line technology ( probably the first in the world used in jade carving) developed early in the Neolithic in the jade industry. These industrial techniques such as the lath and drill developed for jade became very effective in the manufacture of military weapons. The level of sophistication of metallurgy was amazingly advanced ahead of the west in China, but went no further.

China's cultural development was very successful early, and language, government. and the basic philosophy were fixed by early written record and printing. These factors tend to fix and standardize cultures.

There is not a good comparison of religion, but philosophy did play a factor. The overwhelming emphasis on hierarchy, order and the fear of disorder lead China to avoid exploring alternatives beyond the basic technologies that were successful. As mentioned before in China the very basic technologies were kept, because the sense of stability and order reduced the potential of further development.

The lack of competition between major powers in the Orient greatly inhibited the need to develop modern weapons as a motivation for industrialization. The competition between major powers like England, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, the Arab world, and later Russia was a major motivation for industrialization in the west. Following the race between the powers of Europe in the development of weapons like firearms is a strong element in industrialization.

I believe the failure to industrialize was set much earlier when the foundation of industrial development was not followed through very early in Tang Dynasty if not earlier. The breakdown in the 19th and 20th century is the consequence of the failure to industrialize not the cause.

Totally ludicrous.

China' was very much at its height militarily & culturally during Tang Dynasty while Europe in the period of ' Dark Ages '.

True, but unfortunately China never advanced beyond this peak of glory in what I described as preindustrial stage of development. IT stopped here and did not advance. In my list I included the Arabs as a competing military power that developed highly advanced steel, and naval technology during what you call the dark ages. Europe continued to evolve preindustrial technology as the major powers of Europe developed to compete in nautical and weapons technology. the industrial, scientific, and technological revolution in Europe did not happen suddenly, it evolved on a foundation of basic technologies that developed even in the 'Dark Ages.' In the Renaissance Michelangelo's technological inventions developed around military applications.

I have CHF moderator Non-Han Nan-Ban proves you wrong again,he wrote the following wikipedia page.


Technology of the Song Dynasty

The Song Dynasty (Chinese: 宋朝; 960–1279 CE) provided some of the most significant technological advances in Chinese history, many of which came from talented statesmen drafted by the government through imperial examinations.

The ingenuity of advanced mechanical engineering had a long tradition in China. The Song Dynasty engineer Su Song admitted that he and his contemporaries were building upon the achievements of the ancients such as Zhang Heng (78–139), an astronomer, inventor, and early master of mechanical gears.[1] The application of movable type printing advanced the already widespread use of woodblock printing to educate and amuse Confucian students and the masses. The application of new weapons employing the use of gunpowder enabled the Song Dynasty to ward off its militant enemies—the Liao, Western Xia, and Jin with weapons such as cannons—until its collapse to the Mongol forces of Kublai Khan in the late 13th century.

Notable advances in civil engineering, nautics, and metallurgy were made in Song China, as well as the introduction of the windmill to China during the thirteenth century. These advances, along with the introduction of paper-printed money, helped revolutionize and sustain the economy of the Song Dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Song_Dynasty

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...p;#entry4952412

Again none of these advances led to industrialization. They only represent applications of existing preindustrial technologies. Woodblock printing in China is found as early as 220 BC in the Han dynasty.

As far as gunpowder technology these later uses do not represent advancements in technology like that progressed in the west. the basic technology and application of gunpowder for military purposes existed in the Tang dynasty. Yes, cannons were later developed, but no progressive evolution of technology continued as did in the west with the arms race between the military powers of Europe.

[cite=http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_26504.htm] Many historical materials indicate that gunpowder first appeared before the Tang Dynasty (618-907). From 300 to 650AD several recipes were written about inflammable mixtures. Some historians date the invention of gunpowder at 850AD when a Taoist book warned of three specific elixir formulas as too dangerous to experiment.

The military applications of gunpowder began in the Tang Dynasty. Explosive bombs filled with gunpowder and fired from catapults were used in wars. During the Song and Yuan dynasties (960-1368), the military applications of gunpowder became common and some other weapons like "fire cannon", "rocket", "missile" and "fireball" were introduced. [/cite]

Blaming 19th and 20th century politics for the failure of the industrialization in China fails to recognize the failure of the progressive development of technology in China in many areas over the centuries as in Europe. The technology of weapons and the basics of industry progressed in the west through the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries leading to the failutre of industrialization in China.

Medicine is another example of the failure of the progressive development of technology as in the west. China remained entrenched in traditional medicine without progressive technological advances. Technology and industrialization is a progressive evolving process and is manifest in many areas of human civilization.

I agree with those who say that China did not industrialise because, above all, there was no immediate need. Regardless of their religious identity or traditions, all societies begin to transform only when some kind of need arises, some combination of internal and external factors that make this necessary or encourage the process. China simply did not encounter this combination of circumstances until later.
England just had the right combination of circumstances. It became outward-focused, sea-going power with expansionist policy, colonies supplying a new flood of raw materials to be processed. It had a developed class of traders keen to have these raw materials processed and make money. There was a rise in fascination with science and technology in thinkers at the time, the prevailing philosophical currents are looking forward and pushing knowledge outwards, rather than studying the past but not reaching beyond. Probably, in my opinion, if the country is outward-focused and in contact with diverse sources round the world, even if by means only of colonial expansion and war, this influences the philosophical aspect too.
Maybe if China had been outward-focused it might have had a different sort of development. Maybe if say, Zheng He's expeditions in the early Ming period were not just a brief period but started a sustained move outwards, with the new knowledge and exchanges and influences that would have followed, maybe the thinking in China would have formed differently and priorities might have altered.
There also must be will from those who have the innovative thinking, and some room to maneouvre and find some outlet for their inventions or new ideas to gain recognition. This was a tough process even in supposedly enlightened progressive societies. Medicine is a perfect example. In Europe, it is enough to recall the resistance to Edward Jenner's smallpox vaccination in this same industrialising England, or how hard it was just to convince doctors of the need to do something as simple as wash their hands (how a doctor called Semelweiss in a Vienna hospital brought down deaths of women in childbirth by making doctors wash their hands, and he got fired).
Industry too had its battles, like the Luddites in England trying to smash machinery, so there needs to be ways within the society for inventors and innovators to make their ideas public and get them known, implemented in practice.
China did not have this kind of possibility within the society. It was one of the things the 1898 reforms tried to address with ideas of a patent system and encouragement for inventions.