![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Implausible Histories V:
China.
Yes, China. The existence of China itself is extremely implausible. This may come as a surprise to people who know that the PRC is a continuation of the old policy of a unified authoritarian regime in East Asia. But it is true nonetheless. China is not a "natural" entity, though if we are to be picky about it the only "natural" human method of society is hunting and gathering, and all states are various degrees of artificiality. That said, China has the distinction of being the oldest-unified state and also one of the most unique.
First, China itself managed to do what the Roman Empire never did, re-start itself repeatedly in successor empires. The Roman Empire's attempt to re-conquer Italy failed, and the Holy Roman Empire provides an admirable example of the state-that-is-not-a-state. The contemporary PRC is just a contemporary continuation of that, adopted to modern times and the challenges they face. It is perfectly plausible that the region called China today might have developed in the vein of Europe into an area composed of a single cultural history and metaculture, with the Han Empire becoming to that China what Rome has become to Europe. Instead, thanks to a ruthless and vicious Totalitarian policy followed by Qin Shi Huang, the first totalitarian back in the 3rd Century BC (China invents everything), Chinese societies were able to achieve something beyond the dreams of any other cultural region: create a unified imperial state.
Second, Chinese rule did something that Rome and Indian societies did not, as well as Muslim societies: they invented the concept, albeit in a Chinese form, of "the tree of liberty is fed by the blood of tyrants." They called it the Mandate of Heaven. The Chinese Empire in a paradoxical way was much freer than its Communist successor has ever been, as the concept existed that the Emperor's power relied on providing for the populace. If this provision became inadequate, off with the emperor's head. This also gave the Imperial Chinese system a flexibility that few other systems have ever truly possessed. Both the Euro-Christian and Islamic metacultures depended on single rulers who in the vein of Japanese Emperors gradually became attenuated in power to irrelevancy: the Caliph (which was still for all its nature as a universal leadership quite democratic, the only thing the Caliph got to show his election was a handshake). But in Europe and the expanding Islamic world, the concepts of the sovereign answering to the people in any real sense took much longer to evolve. In China it was inbuilt.
Third, China maintained for a long time the most stable and prosperous society on the planet. It was the superior of Europe for a very long time and remained equal to it up into the 19th Century. Unified rule under the Imperial structure permitted the growth of a stable system and provided a basis so that invasions of China ended up Sinifying with much less ruinous effects than invasions of Europe or the heartland of Medieval Islam. It is from this that the Chinese never really felt the need to adopt European ways, as they were equally prosperous as the richer corners of Europe until quite late. And while India itself fell into European colonial rule, China never fell completely into the orbit of Europe or Japan despite long attempts to create this effect by both powers.
Fourth, the Chinese have provided stable government that was democratic by the pre-Industrial age definition that was stable and more than equal to Europe, yet have been accused of being backward. If we are to use the term in a serious sense, Europe deserves it more as the largest European society in the overland sense was an authoritarian despotism while Europeans were not able to civilize themselves enough to divest themselves of conquering other people instead of using the more civilized method of hitting their pocketbooks. Hence I reject fully that one of the most stable societies on Earth is also one of the more backwards societies, China was no more authoritarian than most pre-Industrial states and less so than many. And China's prosperity was equal to Europe's for quite some time, even with Europe able to enrich itself from the conquest of two entire continents, which implies still more problems for the thesis that Europe was inherently superior to other societies.
This is your Implausible Histories update.
Yes, China. The existence of China itself is extremely implausible. This may come as a surprise to people who know that the PRC is a continuation of the old policy of a unified authoritarian regime in East Asia. But it is true nonetheless. China is not a "natural" entity, though if we are to be picky about it the only "natural" human method of society is hunting and gathering, and all states are various degrees of artificiality. That said, China has the distinction of being the oldest-unified state and also one of the most unique.
First, China itself managed to do what the Roman Empire never did, re-start itself repeatedly in successor empires. The Roman Empire's attempt to re-conquer Italy failed, and the Holy Roman Empire provides an admirable example of the state-that-is-not-a-state. The contemporary PRC is just a contemporary continuation of that, adopted to modern times and the challenges they face. It is perfectly plausible that the region called China today might have developed in the vein of Europe into an area composed of a single cultural history and metaculture, with the Han Empire becoming to that China what Rome has become to Europe. Instead, thanks to a ruthless and vicious Totalitarian policy followed by Qin Shi Huang, the first totalitarian back in the 3rd Century BC (China invents everything), Chinese societies were able to achieve something beyond the dreams of any other cultural region: create a unified imperial state.
Second, Chinese rule did something that Rome and Indian societies did not, as well as Muslim societies: they invented the concept, albeit in a Chinese form, of "the tree of liberty is fed by the blood of tyrants." They called it the Mandate of Heaven. The Chinese Empire in a paradoxical way was much freer than its Communist successor has ever been, as the concept existed that the Emperor's power relied on providing for the populace. If this provision became inadequate, off with the emperor's head. This also gave the Imperial Chinese system a flexibility that few other systems have ever truly possessed. Both the Euro-Christian and Islamic metacultures depended on single rulers who in the vein of Japanese Emperors gradually became attenuated in power to irrelevancy: the Caliph (which was still for all its nature as a universal leadership quite democratic, the only thing the Caliph got to show his election was a handshake). But in Europe and the expanding Islamic world, the concepts of the sovereign answering to the people in any real sense took much longer to evolve. In China it was inbuilt.
Third, China maintained for a long time the most stable and prosperous society on the planet. It was the superior of Europe for a very long time and remained equal to it up into the 19th Century. Unified rule under the Imperial structure permitted the growth of a stable system and provided a basis so that invasions of China ended up Sinifying with much less ruinous effects than invasions of Europe or the heartland of Medieval Islam. It is from this that the Chinese never really felt the need to adopt European ways, as they were equally prosperous as the richer corners of Europe until quite late. And while India itself fell into European colonial rule, China never fell completely into the orbit of Europe or Japan despite long attempts to create this effect by both powers.
Fourth, the Chinese have provided stable government that was democratic by the pre-Industrial age definition that was stable and more than equal to Europe, yet have been accused of being backward. If we are to use the term in a serious sense, Europe deserves it more as the largest European society in the overland sense was an authoritarian despotism while Europeans were not able to civilize themselves enough to divest themselves of conquering other people instead of using the more civilized method of hitting their pocketbooks. Hence I reject fully that one of the most stable societies on Earth is also one of the more backwards societies, China was no more authoritarian than most pre-Industrial states and less so than many. And China's prosperity was equal to Europe's for quite some time, even with Europe able to enrich itself from the conquest of two entire continents, which implies still more problems for the thesis that Europe was inherently superior to other societies.
This is your Implausible Histories update.
shocked