Welcome to the NEW HistoryExplained.Com

23. Why was Europe first?

April 5, 2003

This conversation was taken from the Forum Thread “Has anyone read all of An Explanation of History?”

Blake, July 15, 2002

Indeed, I did read the document, which I found to be fascinating, though I strongly disagree with some of your conclusions (such as your opinion of the cold war.) I have two questions about your essay, though. Why, in your opinion did China gain such a technological lead over Europe only to lose it in 1700's? (What was so special about Europe that it fostered liberal, pluralistic, capitalism?) Also, what is the next great movement of history after capitalistic democracy? Or do you subscribe to the Fukuyama school of thought?

David Maurer, July 25, 2002

You ask: why did China gain such a technological lead over Europe only to loose it in the 1700s? The answer to this question requires an understanding of the two different kinds of aristocrat peasant society. These are feudal society and imperial bureaucratic society.

Aristocrat peasant society evolved as a mechanism to distribute the food surpluses that were made possible by agriculture. Most of the population were subservient peasants. They worked the land, produced the food, and turned over about 1/3 of it to the aristocrats who distributed it to the non-food producers of the society. There were various ways to do this.

The most common form of aristocrat peasant society is called feudalism. It is based on a large number of semi-independent, land-owning, aristocratic families. These local aristocrats own and control their own land and peasants. They are often powerful feudal barons with their own armed retainers and sometimes private armies.

In feudal society, larger political entities such as kingdoms are made up from the combined lands of as many local barons as the king can control. The king has much higher status than the feudal barons, but he is not all powerful. The local aristocrats control most of the land and peasants, and the king tries to control them. The monarch’s authority is usually based on the feudal oath. The local aristocrats swear an oath of fealty to their king, which requires them to accept his authority and come to his aid. Sometimes the feudal barons keep their oath and are loyal to their king, and sometimes they don’t.

In feudal society, the powerful local and regional aristocrats often ignore all rules and laws except their own narrowly perceived self-interest. They fight with each other, steal from each other, attack merchant convoys, and cause all kinds of problems and disruptions. This makes it very difficult to have a prosperous economy and to develop higher levels of learning and technology. Feudal aristocratic societies were often quite poor. They concentrated more on fighting than on productivity.

The second basic type of aristocrat peasant society, which I call imperial bureaucratic society, was usually much wealthier, more productive, and had a higher level of technology. Examples of this type of society include Egypt under the Pharos, the Roman Empire, and the Chinese Empire.

In this kind of society the ruling imperial dynasty is much stronger and more powerful than a typical feudal monarch. The local aristocrats are much weaker. The emperor has a large bureaucracy whose tentacles extend down to the county and village level. These officials oversee the collection of taxes directly from the peasants and exercise a high degree of control over the peasants at the local level. The local aristocrats are reduced to the status of landlords. They do not have castles; they do not have armed retainers, and they are nothing like the feudal barons of medieval Europe.

Imperial bureaucratic society is much more unified, much better organized, and a lot more peaceful than feudal society. They do not have private armies controlled by feudal barons rampaging around, attacking each other, and looting the merchants. Instead the bureaucracy enforces law and order, and there is a reasonable degree of peace and stability. At least there is when a strong emperor is on the throne. These conditions allow for a higher degree of productivity and prosperity. Merchants are left in peace to conduct their business. Trade flourishes. As usual, the more market based trade, the higher the level of technology.

As a result, the Chinese Empire was much wealthier and had a higher level of technology than feudal Europe. The Roman Empire also was much wealthier and had a higher level of technology than feudal Europe. Even the Old Kingdom in Egypt, which existed 3000 years prior to the European Middle Age, may have used more technology as part of their daily routine than feudal Europe.

The second part to your first question asks: why did the Chinese loose their technology lead over Europe in the 1700s? The answer is fairly straightforward. Western Europe began changing from feudal aristocratic society to market economy, nation-state society in the 1600s. It took a while for this new kind of society to rev up and show its potential, but in the 1700s and 1800s it clearly surpassed the Chinese in productivity, wealth, and technology.

Your second question is: what was so special about Europe that it fostered liberal, pluralistic capitalism? Frankly, I don’t see that there was anything particularly special about Europe, and I would not say that Europe fostered liberal, pluralistic capitalism. Market capitalism has been around for thousands of years. It was big in the Roman Empire, in China, and in the medieval Italian city-states. But, until 400 years ago in the Netherlands, aristocrats were stronger.

I think the triumph of market capitalism over aristocratic command economy society was due to special conditions in the Netherlands. From there it spread very slowly and fitfully to the rest of Western Europe. Most countries have been dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, protesting all the way. Europe was no exception. If there was anything special in Europe fostering market capitalism, why was it necessary to have the French Revolution?

Third question: what is the next great movement of history after capitalistic democracy? Tribal society lasted for 140,000 years or longer, depending on how you want to define it. Aristocratic society lasted for at least 6000 years. I expect democratic market society to last at least 10,000 years and probably much longer. But I also expect massive change. I believe that the democratic capitalism that exists today is a primitive, pale shadow of the democratic capitalism that will exist in a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Last question: do I believe in the Fukuyama school of thought? I haven’t read Fukuyama, but as I understand, he seems to think that there was a titanic struggle between capitalism and communism for control of the world. Capitalism won, and that is the last really important event in the foreseeable history of the world. I very much disagree with this thesis. I believe that communism was a simple attempt to find a better form of capitalism. It would still feature investment in farms and factories with the intention of producing food and manufactured goods. The difference was that the process would be controlled by a state bureaucracy rather than the markets. The Soviet Union, China, and a few other countries ran an experiment to see if communism would work. The results are in, it didn’t. I looked at the preliminary results 35 years ago and came to the same conclusion. It was a very useful thing that this experiment was run and that we have a definitive answer. There was no need to fight about it.

The worldwide transition from traditional societies to democratic market society really is a gigantic important event, and it is not yet over. Communism was never more than a small part of this transition. The continuation of this revolution and the future development of capitalist democracy will provide plenty of excitement in the years to come.

Blake, July 25, 2002

Thank you for your response, however I am still unconvinced that democracy will sweep over the Earth in a massive transition. I think that Europe was more suited to free-market capitalism than China. Over millennia, China has evolved into the most massive, bureaucratic, imperial state in all of human history. There is a reason for this; China's situation, i.e: overpopulation, geography, religion, etc, dictate its' historical form of government. China has evolved the system best suited for it, just as Europe evolved into dozens of small. feuding, competitive states.

Also, I think you fail to appreciate a coming challenge to democracy; the technologies of cloning, genetic enhancement, and artificial intelligence. If such technologies go unregulated, humanity will be in great peril, but to regulate them may require draconian methods. Walking the tightrope will prove quite a challenge to the democracies of the world.

On a final note you criticize U.S. involvement in Korea, indeed you seemed to reject the notion of combating Communism at all. What would you have preferred the U.S. to do, simply allow Communism's rampant expansion, secure in the knowledge that their ideology was doomed to failure? Surely you are not so naive?

David Maurer, August 2, 2002

You are certainly correct that some countries have an easier time developing into democratic market societies than others, but Europe was not at the top of the list. The group of countries that had the easiest transition is the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. The Europeans who settled these countries took a short cut into the modern world. They did not go through the slow and painful process of changing an existing society. Instead, they left their old countries behind and made a fresh start in a new place. They cleansed the small weak populations that had previously inhabited their new homes. The citizens of these new countries started out with a relatively high degree of social, economic, and political equality, which led to the relatively rapid development of a successful market economy and democracy.

Europe gave rise to the first market economy nation-state, but that was something of a special case. In general the European aristocracy fought tooth and nail to maintain their exclusive hold on political power. When they lost that battle, they merged with the wealthiest commoners to form an oligarchic class that still fought to maintain control of the government and the economy. I have to wonder if you have read much European history of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

You are quite right to believe that the modern revolution in China was always going to be one of the most difficult in the world. The same basic type of imperial Chinese society lasted for 3000 years. It was a true giant in size, population, wealth, and power. The ancien regime in China probably had more force of tradition and inertia behind it than in any other country on Earth. But the necessity for revolution was equally strong.

Between 1842 and 1945 China was attacked and defeated a dozen times by all the major powers including Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and on one occasion even the United States joined in. Around the turn of the century one of the world’s favorite sports was attacking China. The worst was the attack launched by Japan in 1933 that continued till 1945 and included the Rape of Nanking and many other atrocities. All of these attacks happened because China was too weak to defend itself. China was weak because it was not a modern nation-state.

By 1945 it was obvious to the Chinese people that this problem had to be remedied. They had to become a modern industrial nation-state, and they had to do it fast. The emperor and mandarins were gone, but they had been replaced by warlords, anarchy, and chaos. In 1945 the average Chinese peasant village was still very similar to what it had been a thousand years earlier. The local aristocrats, the landlords, were still there. The peasants were still a subservient underclass, and the country was still light years away from being a modern nation. The necessity for revolution was an irresistible force. The inertia of the peasant village and the ancient rhythms of life was an immovable object. The collision between them would inevitably be on a gigantic scale.

This was the reason for the communist revolution in China. Communism was the strongest form of revolution known. The property of the landlords was nationalized, but they still thought of themselves as a special class. A million of them were executed. Sure it was brutal, but as you pointed out bringing China into the modern world was always going to be difficult. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were also brutal, but within two generations there was no such thing as peasants and aristocrats in China. Most of the revolution has now been accomplished. In one more generation China will be a modern democratic market society.

You clearly recognize that the modern revolution in China would be very difficult, but when they chose to use communism you seem to think that the United States must intervene to stop them. Why? Do you think China should be forced to remain in some kind of limbo between aristocrat peasant society and modern society? How is it America’s business to choose what kind of revolution should be used in China?

At the time these events occurred it was not really possible to understand them. Only by studying history can we piece this stuff together. 20/20 hindsight is needed to understand that communism was part of the revolution that is bringing about democracy and successful capitalist economies. I do not blame the United States for misinterpreting communism 50 years ago. This country, and the rest of the Western world, made an honest mistake. But now it is possible to understand what really happened. The Cold War was an unfortunate misunderstanding.

here is an old saying that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. This is sometimes true. The United States is presently repeating its mistake by opposing Islamic fundamentalism and revolution in the Middle East. It is now evident that tribal societies and mixed tribal aristocratic societies also have a very difficult time making the transition into the modern world. Islamic fundamentalism may not be a great solution, but the United States does not have anything better to offer. It is time to learn from the past rather than have another Cold War between the United States and the Arabs.

As for cloning and genetic engineering they may or may not become problems in the future. If they become problems, we will have to deal with them. I prefer to worry about problems that already exist.

Blake, August 2, 2002

I did not mean to imply that America and its' allies should keep China in an imperial bureaucracy, but the Korean War was necessary to America's long term interests. If Korea had fallen, Taiwan would have been invaded and Japan would never have it's economic miracle. China would gain military superiority in Asia, etc. You seem to think that NATO was the antagonist in the Cold War. I can assure you that the CCCP and the PRC were equally violent in the pursuit of hegemony.

The Cold War was no more a misunderstanding than other conflicts between superpowers. Were the Punic Wars misunderstandings? Could the issues behind World War I be sorted out by level-headed intellectuals? PS: What would you suggest we do about Islamic Fundamentalism in the future? PPS: I may have overlooked it but, I don't believe you mentioned the Civil War in your essay. It is an excellent example of the conflict between agrarian and industrial societies.

Blake, August 3, 2002

I just wanted to thank you for responding to my posts and answering my questions I really appreciate the effort you have put into your answers.

Blake, August 5, 2002

It's me again. I know that you purposely wrote a short essay, but have you considered writing a longer one, which would include technology and religion in the theory? Also, what do you do for a living; do you teach history in addition to writing it? If so where? I ask because I'll be needing to pick a college soon, and you explain your theory better than most historians I have read.

I also have trouble accepting the fact that the USSR would inevitably lose the struggle for hegemony. Of course I've always had trouble seeing history as a process. To me, it's a wonder that many things you see as inevitabilities even happened. Western civilization wouldn't exist if not for a narrow victory over the Persian Empire. If Greece were conquered, do you still think democracy would exist?

Blake, August 6, 2002

While I hate to give you four of my posts to answer, I noticed that you said you “had to wonder if I ” had read much European history of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. I'm surprised I missed this INSULT in my first read of your reply. Indeed I have, at least I have read as much as possible in my nine years of literacy (I'm 14). While I certainly have not read the amount of history you have, I have amassed a great deal of information in my pubescent mind. My conclusions are not the same as yours, but I have seen the same information.

Yes, Europe had a difficult transition. BUT IT HAD THE TRANSITION, which is more than I can say for China, India, the Americas, or anywhere else. Also you dogged my question about the special conditions that led to the transition. You said that Holland, not Europe, had the special conditions. You still didn't say why. And market capitalism was not present in ancient societies. At least, not the way I think of capitalism. My version has companies, protection of merchants by law, etc.

PS: While I enjoy our discussion, I don't enjoy it to the point where I'm willing to put with insults.

David Maurer, August 6, 2002

OK, OK, you are getting way too far ahead of me. Sorry if you feel insulted, but I was starting to wonder. For over 300 years the history of Europe was the story of aristocrats and oligarchs stomping and destroying revolutionary movements.

You say that you don't see the inevitability of the revolution. Look at the data. The German aristocrats stomped all over rebellious peasants in the 16th century. They did it again during the 30 Years War in the 17th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries the French aristocrats were busy taking back reforms that had previously been won by their peasants. From 1600 to 1800 the aristocrats in Spain and Portugal were becoming more powerful every year and the merchants less powerful. There were 10,000 little battles between the forces of aristocracy and the forces of modernity. The aristocrats won nearly all of them, but it didn't matter, the battle would go on.

ust before the French Revolution it looked as if aristocrats and monarchs were in total control in Europe. But a new kind of world without peasants and aristocrats was waiting to be born. Revolution blew up in France in 1789. It burned brightly for two decades and was carried around Europe by Napoleon, but then it was snuffed out by aristocrats again.

In 1820 every government in Europe was run by triumphant aristocrats. In Britain and the Netherlands a few wealthy merchants and lawyers were also included. But the common man was universally excluded. Revolutions continued in 1830, 1848, and the early 1870s. Mostly they were crushed. But the world was changing. Marketing, manufacturing, and farming kept growing and becoming more productive and more important. Commoners were better at these things than aristocrats. No matter how many times the aristocrats pounded the commoners back into their place the revolution kept coming back stronger and stronger.

The society had changed. It was no longer a command economy society run by aristocratic command. It had become a market economy society, and the higher the level of political, economic, and social equality, the better the markets work. It did not matter how many times the aristocrats and oligarchs kept pounding the commoners into the ground, the markets needed them. Finally two massive wars destroyed the old society, and the ordinary common citizen came to power in Western Europe.

Now the same process is happening in pretty much the same way in the rest of the world. Why was Europe first? I don't know. There was probably dozens of contributing factors. Can we ever track them down and determine for sure just what they were? I don't know. It is a project that requires comparing one society to another. I do this all the time, but I am the only historian that does. All the rest are specialists. They study only one society. They cannot compare the events in their society to similar events elsewhere.

Somebody had to be first. As it turned out, it was Western Europe. If there is ever a revolution in the way that historians study history, we will know more.

Is it inevitable that the modern revolution will eventually succeed everywhere? I think that it is. Remember the word eventually can cover an awful lot of time.

Market economies have become dominant everywhere. In their early stages, they can be very exploitative, and there is often a lot of resistance. But there is no alternative. Aristocratic command economies are less than 1% as productive as a successful market economy. Communist command economies are less than 10% as productive.

There is no such thing as a FREE market economy. Depending on how the word free is intended, it is either redundant or wrong. The word market already includes the concept that price must move freely according to the law of supply and demand. If the word free is supposed to imply unregulated, it is nonsense. If the markets are not regulated, they will be manipulated. It is necessary to have a strong nation-state government to regulate the markets. Otherwise people with wealth and power will manipulate the markets and steal the money. We have recently found out that corporate executives in the U.S. have been fudging the books and brazenly manipulating the markets. This is incredibly detrimental to a market economy and must be stopped. Good, sound, quality regulation is a necessity for a successful market economy.

In order to work best, the regulatory authority must be responsible to everyone. It must accept input from everyone. Those countries that get it right become wealthy. Those countries that have not yet gotten it right, remain poor. This will continue in the future.

History clearly shows that the process of getting it right is long and hard. It took more then three centuries for Western Europe to get it right. The rest of the world will shorten that to between one and two centuries. But it will happen.

Most of the political groups out there that reject Western style market economics are actually participating in the revolution that will bring about democratic market society. Communism helped to destroy aristocrats and oligarchs. Fascism helped to destroy aristocrats and oligarchs. Islamic Fundamentalism is helping to destroy aristocrats and oligarchs. It doesn't matter what these political groups intend. The unintended consequences of their actions are much more important than what they intend. The more destructive they are, the faster they destroy the old society in their countries.

I am enjoying this conversation and would like it to continue, but I am a slow writer. You ask 3 or 4 questions in a single paragraph, but they need many pages for a decent answer. Right now you have outstanding questions about the Netherlands, Korea, and the communist struggle for hegemony, which by the way never happened. It was made up by the Western media.

Let's start fresh from here. Ask one question at a time and give me a week to answer it. I will try to be faster than that, but I can make no promises. We can keep going for as many years as it takes to answer them all. Please sign your next question with at least your first name.

Blake, August 6, 2002

Thank you, Blake