A challenge for Marxists.

[plarq]

The answer comes down to political capital. The Chinese never "modernized" until the Communists took over and forced a program of modernization.

Before commies, only several cities of China is modernized. The commies built multiple industrial bases, 50s by Soviet aid, and 70s by Western aid. That is the key of modernization--by foreign power. The industry before communist takeover is also foreign-funded, Shanghai is the most vivid example in old China modernization.

Under the British Raj, India underwent modernization, that might have already come about without British aid. I mean, I suppose Britain dumped some capital into the process, but I believe the political will was already there.

The British Raj's political will is to keep Indian national capitals at the stake of British imperialists' mercy. The weakening of UK power reversed the superiority of British over Indians.

This is why Japan (among other reasons) entered the imperial game when other nations didn't. There was a lot of political capital behind modernization. Also, Japan caught the wave of sociopathic nationalism that was sweeping imperialistic countries at the time which allowed for the colonizing of Manchuria and other such places under the guise of Japanese superiority.

Japan had a successful revolution that put new powerful players who are willing to westernize in power. In Qing Dynasty there is no such chance, the Taiping rebels don't have much idea about westernization besides their pseudo-Christian cult.

I understand that imperialism is more complicated than just sociopathic nationalism, but I firmly believe that nationalism, especially of that variety is like a zombie virus. Either a nation catches,or it is destroyed by another nation that has caught it.

Just believing nationalism does not magically gives power for the nationalists. A revolutionary regime must be established and the old regime must transform into a modern one and an effective one. KMT is modern but not effective, the Chinese commies are modern and effective, and that's the reason for the outcome of Chinese Civil War.

 

[Hygro]

Japan also had the advantage of being so resource poor that they got ignored for a good half century while they drudged their culture out of one mode into another. If Japan had the same extraction potential, even per capita, as China, Japan's story would have looked a lot more Chinese.

 

[jackelgull]

Japan also had the advantage of being so resource poor that they got ignored for a good half century while they drudged their culture out of one mode into another. If Japan had the same extraction potential, even per capita, as China, Japan's story would have looked a lot more Chinese.

True. It is almost impossible to pinpoint why certain countries turned out the way they did, whether they became an imperialistic power, or were the ones to bend over and take it. It is a combination of market structures, or developing solutions for certain problems, of efficient utilization of human capital, of resources in the area, of political capital to protect industry and modernize, of actual capital poured in by governments and private investors, of nationalistic sentiment etc. Which is why there can never be a control group to compare and contrast from, because accounting for all the important variables is impossible. I still believe those who point to India as a success story for British imperialism are over exaggerating how much the British "helped" India.