History Lesson III: The Pre-Modern Era

Greetings!

I have hopefully adequately explained how our society had developed from before history to about 1450 CE. Please feel free to ask me to clarify anything. Otherwise, we may move along. I will now introduce you to the pre-modern world, from which we can directly derive our current state. I have been spending a great deal of my letters on the Western world. This is because there is no doubt that Western thinking is the most pervasive set of constructs in our world in 2004. Not a single nation on earth today can deny that they have been effected by what is known as the West. Once the United States and Canada had shown themselves 'worthy' of being included in the same social category as Europe, Europeans could no longer call themselves the centre of all things. They had to create a term that included themselves and North America, while excluding all others, which collectively asserted their common social and economic values. That these values are considered the path to development today is largely due to 19th century conceptions of 'development' and cultural superiority.

Oddly enough, in 1400 Europe did not have much going for it. China was centuries ahead in technology and commerce. India was the candidate for an industrial revolution along the lines of textile manufactures. Korea and Japan were both great cultural centres that were quick to contend with Chinese dominance. Muslims in their vast and expansive empires were ludicrously wealthy and very competant merchants and seafarers. MesoAmerica had built massive empires in Mexico and Peru which rivalled the tiny, enclosed towns of Europe. In 1400, the Chinese would have considered Europe a third world region. Even the west coast of Africa had centuries of experience trading with India and China, and were very wealthy. What changed?

In the 1410's and 20's, Ming China launched seven extraordinary fleets of wooden sailing ships under Admiral Zheng He, a Muslim eunuch and favorite of the Emperor Zhu Di. These fleets numbered in the hundreds of ships, some 400 ft long and 50 ft wide. The pinnacle of European naval architecture at the same time reached a whopping 150 ft or so. Even in the early 19th century, ships did not exceed 300 ft. On these Chinese fleets, tens of thousands of sailors, soldiers, diplomats, scribes, artists, and tradespeople lived and worked. The aim of these fleets was to display the opulence and power of the Chinese to foreign lands, and to bring ambassadors to the court in Beijing to recieve gifts and become integrated into an already expansive Chinese trading network. The effect was surely dramatic.

Gavin Menzies, a retired Royal Navy submarine captain, suggested in his book "1421, the Year China Discovered the World" that the last of these fleets managed to explore a good portion of the world before returning to China. We do know that earlier fleets had reached West Africa. Perhaps they reached the Americas, Australia, Greenland, and New Zealand too. They certainly had the capability.

Unfortunately, before the last fleet reached home, lightning struck the Imperial Palace in Beijing, and Zhu Di went mad. His successor agreed with his Confucian advisors that China did not need the outside world, and banished further operations. He also forbid the building of ships greater than 3 masts and commanded that none travel outside his boarders. China became inward-looking and very traditionalist. The great imperial expansion that wasn't, was Chinese.

India was renouned for its textiles and jewels, and surely would achieve industrialization by 1550, if it were not for a unique set of problems. An industrial revolution would have required capital, which India did have, but also a large consolidated state, which it did not. No ruler had a very large territory, and like feudal Europe India was highly partitioned. Indians were not mechanically inclined and suffered from shortages of fuel to run machines. Like China, India was reliant on massive irrigation agriculture, which resulted in massive labour needs and state bureacracy. These institutional and cultural barriers help explain why India did not win the race for development in the Pre-Modern Era.

The great Muslim empires were made of very adept merchant capitalists, they were expert traders and travellers, and very scientific. However, they lacked important resource bases and were not effective manufacturers. Their wealth was largely derived from selling goods obtained in India and China to Europeans, as well as the trade of such goods itself. In 1498, Islam lost the bid for development to Europe through its overreliance on mercantilism. But they didn't know it yet.

Portugal in the 15th century was one of the most remote nations in Europe. It had no land links to the great courts of Paris, Rome, or Vienna. It was not a rich country either. Its produce still consists of cork and olives, then the staple trades. It was not a manufacturing nation, nor a great trader nation like Venice. It had one thing: an adventurous spirit. King Henry ("The Navigator") founded a maritime college at Sagres and encouraged sailors and mathematicians to attend. Here, he trained a series of men who would become explorers. These men were not so much interested in finding new lands as they were finding an alternate route to the riches and goods of the East. Tired of sending all thier gold and silver through Venice to Arabia to get Indian and Chinese goods, and alarmed in 1453 when the Turks cut off the western terminus of the eastern trade in Constantinople, Europeans desperately sought another solution to satisfy their addiction to eastern goods.

Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama had similar intentions when they set out in the 1490's. They were seeking another route to the east. Perhaps both had maps showing them where to go, if Gavin Menzies is right. The outcomes of these adventurers' voyages would be completely different and have massive historical effects:

1: Columbus found two new continents to exploit, which happened to be full of bullion (gold and silver). He did not know he had discovered new lands, but his findings changed the economic relation between Europe and the east.

2: da Gama had survived rounding the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. He had breached the barrier between east and west, and opened the Orient to the desires and scruples of Europe. He had cut out the Muslim middle-man and mapped a direct route to the riches of the East. Venice, Constantinople, and the Islamic empires slowly declined as Europeans used his route to buy the goods they wanted and ship them directly home with significantly less cost than buying them from the network of merchants on the overland Silk Road, which each took their cut.

We see directly the shift in economic power from those states who derived their money from the overland route, and those who shipped the goods themselves. The Atlantic states (Portugal, Spain, Holland, England and France, in that order) were the greatest shippers of Oriental goods. The first four of these states assumed the empires established by their listed predecessors over the centuries. France was not a large player in the East, especially after 1763. Today, no one thinks of Venice or Genoa as economic and military powers.

In 1503 da Gama went back to India, this time with more ships and more guns. On the Malabar coast, his 6 carracks, 5 caravels, and 4 naos, defeated 80 Muslim ships packed with soldiers. How? The Portugese had employed their cannons effectively and sunk the Muslim ships before they could get close enough to board. da Gama won the day and had set a precedent. Europeans would from then on monopolize the seas, since they monopolized VIOLENCE AT SEA. No other state could build a force large enough and well-equipped enough to resist European maritime intrusion. The application of heavy guns on manoevreable and capable sailing ships was unique to Europe and China, and as we have seen China surrendered their bid for maritime dominance in the early 15th century, well before the Europeans arrived. As Europeans charged eastward in the succeeding centuries, their naval technology and might increased so that when they did come to confront the Chinese navy in 1839, the contest had been decided a century before. Europeans could mount and utilize maritime violence as no other civilization ever could. Their techniques, discipline, and technology by 1839 were far superior to anything the seas had ever seen, save the massive treasure junks of Zheng He.

With almost unrestrained power at sea, European imperialism advanced unchecked. Wherever they could move a ship, their presence was felt. Soon they began to dominate the shipping of most Oriental states. Europe for the first time in its history was a net importer of bullion. Previously it had to export its bullion east, as it was the only commodity available to them that Muslim merchants would accept. Now with mining in the New World, and the extraction by forced trade of precious metals and stones in India, Persia, China, and Indonesia, Europe flooded with gold. The increase became problematic to Spain, who's massive importation led to a reduction in the price of bullion and caused bankruptcy and inflation.

Portugal had led the way. Their experience with maritime commerce with the Mediterranean had given them the human capital needed to expand their horizons. Not to be outdone by its neighbour, newly reconquered Spain followed quickly. Portugal, with few natural resources and weak domestic industry, was ousted by Spain by 1550. Spain, wracked by debt, European war, inflation, and overburdening colonial commitments, was largely removed from the east by the superior arms of Holland in the 17th century. England, which became Britain in 1707, was left with scraps by the time it had reached a state of imperialist expansion after its Civil War (1641-49). Rather than direct resource extraction, Britain used its colonies in the Caribbean, America, and India, to develop a strong network of trade. Britain was the paragon of the Merchant Capital Social Formation. Its primary mode of income production was the act of acquiring goods at a low price and shipping them to a place of high price. The surplus in this transaction became the wealth of Britain. British merchant ships assumed a massive proportion of the world's shipping. In 1400 England was one of the smallest countries in the world. By 1875 it controlled one quarter of the earth, and all its seas. It had consumed the empire of the Dutch and consistantly defeated the arms of France and Spain combined. It controlled India, directed China's customs and trade, and it was responsible for settling and developing large land masses such as North America and Australia.

So why did former British colonies succeed in development, and former Spanish and French colonies as yet have not? Part of the story has to do with British capital and capitalist systems. Another part is climate. The moderate climate of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand eliminate natural disasters such as hurricanes and tidal waves, while their location render them relatively immune to earthquakes. The temperature of these areas is not irritatingly hot, and they do not possess great deals of bullion or lands suitable for spices or other rare flora. Like Britain, these lands were suitable for cereal crops and sheep, and they resembled home for colonists. They are all easily accessable by sea. Thus the very important questions of infrastructure and local society were answered in favour of stable, orderly production with an eye to future development. Areas which offered more exotic crops or mines were developed to extract those resources and give little in return. Once those resources diminished, or Europeans found a substitute/way to generate them on their own, the area lost its value and the infrastructre could serve no other purpose than the extraction of a non-extant resource.

The other answer is capital. By dominating maritime trade links, Europeans gained all the capital that the Merchant Capital Social Formation could offer. Atlantic capitals swelled with wealth. Local investments disappeared due to the law of diminishing returns, and so European, mainly British, capital sought new outlets for returns. By investing, the wealthy class could expect that their wealth would generate more wealth if the project was successful. Well, by the time projects in Britain dried up (about 1860), that capital began to flow to other parts of the Empire. Canada, Australia, India, and the United States got shiney new factories (except India, which was kept in dependant status) and railroads from British wealth generated by merchant capitalism.

What caused the Industrial Revolution in Britain? No other country was quite as technically adept as Britain, from years of tinkering with naval architecture since the navy was the lifeblood and saviour of the island nation. Dockyards were the first industrial complexes, and they were very advanced in Britain. From 1744 to 1815 Britain was at almost constant war with France, Spain, the Baltic states, and the United States. Britain was encouraged to generate as many ships as possible to keep trade flowing and to protect it with naval might. Mass production was required to build the hundreds of small ships needed to patrol the waters of the Empire, while more creative means were required to churn out dozens of much larger ships, some of which exceeded 110 heavy cannons. A certain amount of technical expertise was acquired to construct these complex vessels, and so I argue that industrial processes were born in the shipyards of southern England, simultaneously with similar situations in textiles and ironworks, which also had military applications. It was Britain that developed the steam engine, and had the capital and fuel (coal) to develop, build, and power it. Economic conditions had created a mobile labour force and the already massive mercantilist system provided markets and raw resources.

European nations consolidated into larger states. Take for example England, which congealed with Wales (1530's), Scotland (1603), and Ireland (a colony since 1174 but ruled from Westminster from 1801) to create Great Britain. France and Spain also experienced similar acquisitions. Their wealth became greater and internal barriers to movement and trade decreased. Capital accumulation became easier, commerce was nurtured, and financial institutions developed and strengthened. The easy flow of money helped mercantile capitalism and eventually industrial capitalism. Credit was relatively secure and easily available. This unique situation helps explain why the Industrial Revolution occured first in the Western world.

In the last 200 years we have had the benefit of studying the process of industrialization in retrospect. It seems that all industrializing nations experience some similar traits.

1: That their population swells, and that excess population emigrates to less populated areas. There, expatriates acquire wealth and return it through family links and investment to their home nation. Later in life they may return and lend their industry and experience to the development of their nation.

2: That all developing states experience a surge in yearly economic growth rates, then peak and level off.

3: That each nation achieves a certain position in the scale of manufactures before labour becomes too expensive and lower-wage industries must move to lower-wage countries.

4: That each nation experiences a labour movement which results in greater civil rights but causes #3.

5: That France is the exception to all of the above.

Karl Marx suggested that imperialism was an inseperable partner to industrialization. This is infact not the case. East Asian development has been highly successful and completely devoid of an imperialist tinge (save Japan). Imperialism was the partner of merchant capital and its drive for monopoly. Therefore it was a leftover from that system rather than the product of industrial capitalism. Marx's stages of capitalism were accurate in a historical sense, since he had the benefit of hindsight. However, his prediction that a world-wide proletarian revoluton would establish communism was incorrect. He did not count on industrial societies eventually legislating in favour of the workers, which created our modern social states. Further, communism is impossible because pure equality is impossible. No two humans are EXACTLY THE SAME. Each is endowed with his or her own GIFTS and these cannot be equated with the gifts of other human beings. While a society may be economically and politically equal in theory, the people will always have an advantage or another over their peers. Some are intelligent, some are technically inclined, some are athletic. None are the pinnacle of human design and so they cannot be equal. My thoughts on this will be posed in a later chapter.

1914-1918 was the last old-world imperial war. It was cumulation of a century of rivalries between alliances, and Britain's percieved dominance. The Great War achieved several things:

1: It ensured that Europeans no longer had the resources to be strong imperial powers.

2: That the United States was a superpower.

3: That Japan had free reign in the Pacific.

4: That the losers were utterly ruined.

5: That Communism became a viable option for workers.

Wars are fought for only two things: RESOURCES and IDEAS. The First World War was fought over resources in respect to colonies and markets. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy wanted more, and Britain and France had many. Russia was a massive expanse as well. Since the members of the Triple Alliance were relatively newcomers to the imperial game, they sought to pick up the scraps of Africa and Asia but were hindered, threatened, and foiled by those powers who already had strong interests in the area. They tried to muscle their European competators out with arms races, which meant that any simple thing could ignite conflict.

With Germany economically crushed, Austria-Hungary dismantled, and Italy on their side by 1915, the Atlantic powers effected victory. They tried to make Germany literally pay for its own defeat. Russia had embarked in 1917 on the path to Communism. By 1921 Russia had ushered in a Communist government under Vladimir Lenin. European nations found money scarce and could no longer afford the imperial adventure. Their colonies began to slip away. War became the object of scorn rather than the call of nationalism. Domestic industrialization took over from reliance on colonial markets. Our modern political and economic relationships were born of the sarcrifice of Empire on the alter of the Great War.

And thus concludes the Pre-Modern Era. In the 90 years from the beginning of WWI, we have seen the rise of only two more empires, and the fall of one (Japan). Imperialism took another form after WWI, and that was American economic imperialism. In the next chapter we will see how our modern era gave birth to the American Empire and we will try to draw some lessons from the Athenian, Roman, and British Empires.

Excel and prosper.