Research on the Early Industrialization Process in Yunnan: 1840-1949

Author: Chen Zhengping
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2002-11-01
Features: Historical facts show that although the Industrial Revolution in Britain pioneered modern industrialization, its specific development path was not the only model for world modern industrialization. The specific drivers and sequence of early industrialization in Britain were also insufficient as a general standard of measurement. The advanced and backward countries, inland and island nations, large and small countries, undergoing the transformation from agrarian societies to industrialized nations at different times and historical foundations, exhibited significant formal differences. Even in the same era, countries with similar developmental levels could show distinct differences in their paths and methods of development. But does this mean there are no patterns to follow? Absolutely not. Marx's analysis and summary of the historical prerequisites in the early development of capitalism remain fundamentally affirmed in numerous analyses today. These conditions broadly included the following aspects: (1) primitive accumulation of capital; (2) dispossession of peasants' land; (3) the emergence of capitalists; (4) the formation of the domestic market for industrial capital. ① Marx believed that these socio-political transformations from the economic sphere laid the material foundation for the emergence and development of early capitalist systems. Of course, at the same time, they also staged a series of tragic historical dramas for humanity. Later, Mendels, in his research on proto-industrialization, pointed out: "The extent of capital accumulation and the changes that occurred in the political and social spheres, as well as the transformations of individuals, largely determine the process of deep (factory) industrialization." ② With the formation and development of modernization theory in the 20th century, the conditions for early industrialization also received further in-depth study. Rudolf Hamann, in his article "Is the European Industrial Revolution a Model for Developing Countries to Emulate?", mentioned: "British social historian Hartwell compiled all the factors proposed as decisive in the literature on the Industrial Revolution, listing them in five groups of variables as follows: (1) capital accumulation; (2) innovation; (3) favorable natural conditions; (4) laissez-faire; (5) market expansion." He argued, "A comprehensive understanding of the Industrial Revolution must consider all the above factors, which operate in different ways at different times." ① From the above content, we can at least glean the following insights: First, in terms of the economic conditions that lead to industrialization, it basically includes three points: capital accumulation, the emergence of innovative capitalists, and the development of markets; second, under the condition of the state as an existing form, the way people act in the economic process, such as the element of laissez-faire. Regarding this, it is difficult to determine whether it is a prerequisite or a consequence of industrialization, because it clearly played a role both before and long after the early stages of capitalist development. Even if laissez-faire is adopted, under the condition of the state's existence, it is clearly conditional and can only be relative. Mendels explicitly pointed out that during Europe's pre-industrialization (also known as proto-industrialization) period, the state "developed political power in the form of legal systems to protect socio-economic relationships to meet the needs." For example, "goods designated for exchange must obtain state recognition and protection of property rights, and buyers and sellers, as owners of goods and money, recognize their exchange as free and equal," and "this provides the basic guarantee conditions for producers and agents in the exchange of goods in the market." ② Regarding the issue of favorable natural conditions, this also requires specific analysis, because historical experience shows that natural resources do not necessarily equal economic resources, and there are conditions that must be met for their transformation. Gerschenkron pointed out: "It must be clarified that a unified model of industrial development is entirely reasonable. Wherever industrialization occurs, it means an increase in the quantity of fixed capital; it means transformations in technology, organizational scale, and the conversion of agricultural laborers and small artisans into factory workers; it means the emergence of people willing and able to engage in entrepreneurial activities." However, he also said: "When we study the later stages of this process, we find that factors that may have played a prerequisite role in one country and, in a sense, became the 'cause' of its industrialization, may in another country seem to be the result of industrialization." Therefore, "what can be reasonably justified as prerequisites in certain historical events can naturally be seen as the consequences of industrialization in others. The boundary between what constitutes the prerequisites for industrial development and what is a response to it appears to be quite flexible. Some patterns can be proposed, according to which related phenomena can be found on either side of this boundary. For a less developed country, one of the criteria for determining its level of backwardness is its lack of those factors that, in more advanced countries, are called the prerequisites for industrial development. Therefore, one way to study this issue is to explore what factors or models can replace the missing elements in the industrialization process of a less developed country." ① This insight leads us to understand that the decisive conditions or factors for the occurrence and development of industrialization can change in their form and content in different historical periods and social historical contexts. For example, the factor of capital accumulation, as revealed in our research, was a long-term natural accumulation process in the Western industrialization process. For developing countries undergoing industrialization, a universal issue is the presence of varying degrees of insufficient capital accumulation, and the solution can mainly rely on government power to achieve, which alters the form of capital accumulation's role; at the same time, it makes the factor of capital accumulation not a prerequisite for the occurrence of events but rather a parameter in the process. When studying the prerequisites for the early industrialization of a late-developing country, to what extent did its early industrialization follow the conventional model of industrial development, and to what extent did it take a unique path? To make a fair judgment, it is first necessary to conduct basic research and analysis on the historical foundation of the subject's early industrialization, revealing its social and economic development level at the time to examine how it emerged and how it developed later. If it lacks the so-called prerequisites for early industrialization, what methods or pathways were used to make up for or replace them. In 1840, the Opium War triggered the impact of Western capitalist economies on the coastal areas and inland regions it affected. Nearly four decades later, Yunnan, located in the remote southwestern part of the country, was almost unaffected. Yunnan is a highland region, with mountainous and semi-mountainous areas accounting for about 94% of the land area, and flat areas accounting for only about 6%. Due to the saying that "every step in Yunnan is mountain," even by the Daoguang era of the Qing Dynasty, it was still "without foreign merchants, and when floods or droughts occurred, grain shortages would result." ① This statement may exaggerate the facts to some extent, but it also reflects the difficulties in communication between Yunnan and the interior caused by natural geographical conditions, which inevitably affected and constrained the development of goods and markets. Due to the transportation barriers at the time, the slow transmission of information not only made it impossible to promptly learn about the developments of wars at that time but also, later, due to the signing of a series of unequal treaties, the gradual changes in the local economic ecosystem caused by the introduction of different Western economic forms in coastal areas made timely communication even more difficult, let alone the fact that the emergence of certain economic forms also required corresponding social and economic foundations. Although Yunnan also experienced a large-scale ethnic uprising led by Du Wenxiu and primarily involving the Hui people in 1856, concurrent with the Taiping Rebellion, and lasting for 18 years, there were also differences in their nature. The Taiping Rebellion, from its inception, development, to its eventual failure, involved the collision of Chinese and Western cultures, the confrontation between Chinese and foreign forces, and ultimately the joint efforts of the Qing government and foreign aggressors to suppress it. 40 years after the Opium War, the nature of Chinese society had changed. Yunnan's ethnic uprising in the same period, however, had a social context and nature similar to the Taiping Rebellion. Therefore, Yunnan's social changes lacked the economic foundation and conditions for industrialization. It was not until the Sino-French War broke out and a series of treaties were signed with France that the transition of Yunnan from a traditional agrarian society to early industrialization began to take place directly. Liberalism was critical of this, believing that "Britain's Indian independence movement was completely driven by extremely baseless interests, and its pursuit of this goal was extremely foolish."