4 ms·

What led to the American Revolution was a lack of much governance by Britain of the colonies for generations, which led to the establishment of self-governance.

What led to the American Revolution was a lack of much governance by Britain of the colonies for generations, which led to the establishment of self-governance. When eventually the King didn't have enough money and needed to levy more taxes on the colonies, the new ruling class revolted. The American Revolution was not a revolution in the sense that France had or that we typically talk about. It was a War of Secession. Comparing it to attempts to overthrow the ruling class in one's own country is not appropriate. It was war to shake off a foreign oppressor from the other side of the world.

nostrademons 10y ago
Sure, but there's nothing stopping the same dynamic from playing out in China (or the current U.S, for that matter). What happens if the economic elites in Shanghai or Shenzhen decide that their interests have diverged from Beijing and that they'd be better off with self-governance? Their economic engines are fueled as much by Western multinational investment as by Beijing, anyway.
- astrodust 10y ago
  That's a big "if". So far it seems like a unified China puts them at an economic advantage since they have the muscle to drive beneficial trade agreements through. So long as the ruling party keeps them all placated they'll have no reason to defect.
- buzzybee 10y ago
  I think the main thing to focus on isn't that there's a direct correlation between economic growth and political liberalization, but rather a "genie out of the bottle" effect where societies will consistently mobilize to preserve their new standard of living, which props up and exaggerates political forces believed to provide that standard of living. Sometimes this leads to civil liberties, other times it leads towards nationalist or imperialist sentiment. But history shows that our tendency is to take on increased complexity as a way of getting something for everyone: regulated markets and civil liberties are both modes of complexification. A lot of the big shifts happen during a crisis: Europe's social democracies, the liberalized markets of Japan and South Korea, the USA as superpower: all of those were forged from the global crisis conditions of World War II and have only gradually drifted off their various trajectories. And, to the extent that the world has a crisis now(and we have a whole bunch of events conceivable as crisis scenarios), it isn't going to resemble the last one: the premises are different, and the means of resolution are likely to be different too.
- douche 10y ago
  The response cycle for the Chinese government is vastly shorter than what King George's government was dealing with.
astrodust 10y ago
China is pretty big, and for some citizens the ruling party may as well be on the other side of the world.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  But uniquely among all countries, they're very likely to be of the same ethnic group, and speak the same language as their rulers. You certainly cannot say that of Brazil, Russia, hell even of the US. Han Chinese is by far the largest ethnicity on Earth - I've always wondered how that impacts Chinese sentiment and history.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    As much as China has a dominant ethnicity, this is only really true in the eastern, core parts of China. In the Northern and Western fringes, plus Tibet, there's entirely unrelated groups of people who, at times, want nothing to do with Beijing. There are countries with more ethnic cohesion, though they tend to be smaller: Iceland for example. Any larger country either came about by annexing smaller ones, or was sufficiently valuable enough that it was colonized at some point.
bike4beer 10y ago
So what is the crime of KIM of NK? Well NK has oil reserves exceeding saudi ( you can google this ), also NK has rare earth mineral reserves 2/3 of all known on earth REM is the vitamin of the high-tech world. China makes the IC's and NK has the vitamins that make them possible. Kim wants to go slow, and he knows with the REM & OIL, NK can & will become the Singapore/Switzerland of Asia. Trouble is the USA doesn't like SLOW, they want it all now, just like Libya and its low-sulfur oil back in the 1980's, when Raygun first targeted the destruction of Libya. Lastly WRT to this OP, we know in the USA that mostly all that comes out of modernization is a police state. An agrarian NK means that most people don't even bother with their GOV, with technology comes Orwellian monitoring as can be seen now in USA all tech devices in the bathroom and bedroom always monitoring people. If KIM has his way and NK is like Singapore, nobody is going to revolt, just like Brunei, everybody will be rich, fat, and happy.
cynicalkane 10y ago
The taxes the King wanted to levy were relatively minor. The ruling class hypothesis doesn't explain why they would launch an expensive and dangerous revolution over a few minor taxes, nor does it explain the revolution's support from the people and intelligentsia. In fact, the rich and powerful tended Loyalist, and many of the top Revolutionaries weren't exactly landed gentry. There's great danger in the Marxoid tendency to see everything in terms of economics and social class. Leaving aside its obvious failures in practical matters, this tendency discounts many real human emotions and often leads one to topsy-turvy assumptions compared to what actually happened.

nostrademons 10y ago

Sure, but there's nothing stopping the same dynamic from playing out in China (or the current U.S, for that matter). What happens if the economic elites in Shanghai or Shenzhen decide that their interests have diverged from Beijing and that they'd be better off with self-governance? Their economic engines are fueled as much by Western multinational investment as by Beijing, anyway.

astrodust 10y ago
That's a big "if". So far it seems like a unified China puts them at an economic advantage since they have the muscle to drive beneficial trade agreements through. So long as the ruling party keeps them all placated they'll have no reason to defect.
buzzybee 10y ago
I think the main thing to focus on isn't that there's a direct correlation between economic growth and political liberalization, but rather a "genie out of the bottle" effect where societies will consistently mobilize to preserve their new standard of living, which props up and exaggerates political forces believed to provide that standard of living. Sometimes this leads to civil liberties, other times it leads towards nationalist or imperialist sentiment. But history shows that our tendency is to take on increased complexity as a way of getting something for everyone: regulated markets and civil liberties are both modes of complexification. A lot of the big shifts happen during a crisis: Europe's social democracies, the liberalized markets of Japan and South Korea, the USA as superpower: all of those were forged from the global crisis conditions of World War II and have only gradually drifted off their various trajectories. And, to the extent that the world has a crisis now(and we have a whole bunch of events conceivable as crisis scenarios), it isn't going to resemble the last one: the premises are different, and the means of resolution are likely to be different too.
douche 10y ago
The response cycle for the Chinese government is vastly shorter than what King George's government was dealing with.

astrodust 10y ago

China is pretty big, and for some citizens the ruling party may as well be on the other side of the world.

JBReefer 10y ago
But uniquely among all countries, they're very likely to be of the same ethnic group, and speak the same language as their rulers. You certainly cannot say that of Brazil, Russia, hell even of the US. Han Chinese is by far the largest ethnicity on Earth - I've always wondered how that impacts Chinese sentiment and history.
- astrodust 10y ago
  As much as China has a dominant ethnicity, this is only really true in the eastern, core parts of China. In the Northern and Western fringes, plus Tibet, there's entirely unrelated groups of people who, at times, want nothing to do with Beijing. There are countries with more ethnic cohesion, though they tend to be smaller: Iceland for example. Any larger country either came about by annexing smaller ones, or was sufficiently valuable enough that it was colonized at some point.

bike4beer 10y ago

So what is the crime of KIM of NK? Well NK has oil reserves exceeding saudi ( you can google this ), also NK has rare earth mineral reserves 2/3 of all known on earth REM is the vitamin of the high-tech world. China makes the IC's and NK has the vitamins that make them possible. Kim wants to go slow, and he knows with the REM & OIL, NK can & will become the Singapore/Switzerland of Asia. Trouble is the USA doesn't like SLOW, they want it all now, just like Libya and its low-sulfur oil back in the 1980's, when Raygun first targeted the destruction of Libya. Lastly WRT to this OP, we know in the USA that mostly all that comes out of modernization is a police state. An agrarian NK means that most people don't even bother with their GOV, with technology comes Orwellian monitoring as can be seen now in USA all tech devices in the bathroom and bedroom always monitoring people. If KIM has his way and NK is like Singapore, nobody is going to revolt, just like Brunei, everybody will be rich, fat, and happy.

cynicalkane 10y ago

The taxes the King wanted to levy were relatively minor. The ruling class hypothesis doesn't explain why they would launch an expensive and dangerous revolution over a few minor taxes, nor does it explain the revolution's support from the people and intelligentsia. In fact, the rich and powerful tended Loyalist, and many of the top Revolutionaries weren't exactly landed gentry. There's great danger in the Marxoid tendency to see everything in terms of economics and social class. Leaving aside its obvious failures in practical matters, this tendency discounts many real human emotions and often leads one to topsy-turvy assumptions compared to what actually happened.