6 ms·

Pushed it from merchantilism to...

clairity 6y ago
the article (competently) argues that china had a fairly global, capitalistic economic system in the late 1800s/early 1900s as exemplified by tea and it's influence on rural trade.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  The protectionist model of trade -- the Canton system -- and similar restrictions dramatically limit private property rights. They put trade at the service of the nation, not at the service of private self-interest; and that is not capitalist.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The Canton System was abolished in 1842.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      The root comment was arguing that British imperialism and the opium wars led China to go from "capitalism to communism" but it's not reasonable to describe the system before British imperialism as "capitalism". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23302410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23302410 The end of the Canton System after the first Opium War doesn't have any bearing on what the economics were like in the time that preceded it.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >it's not reasonable to describe the system before British imperialism as "capitalism". That root comment is sharing an interesting tidbit from the article, which is about the Chinese economy during the "Century of Humiliation."
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        It's the root comment's claim, that British imperialism pushed China from capitalism to communism, that is confused; not the tidbit. Mercantilism is not capitalism. It is another form of subordinated private property rights.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Everyone agrees the Opium War period was mercantilism, they are discussing the post Opium War period.
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        The root comment actually cites a section describing the First Opium War, and then says that British imperialism pushed China from capitalism to communism. Although they do not say specifically say that the period before the First Opium War is what they mean, they don't offer other clues as to the time period.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >do not say specifically say that the period before the First Opium War is what they mean,they don't offer other clues as to the time period. The post is a reaction to the article, describing how the tea trade led to a capitalist system which later fell to Communism. There's no ambiguity.
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        So in your view, there was a transition from mercantilism to capitalism following the First Opium War? And then a transition to communism thereafter?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        It's not really "my view," but I read a rather convincing argument for it. https://aeon.co/essays/the-china-tea-trade-was-a-paradox-of-global-capitalism https://aeon.co/essays/the-china-tea-trade-was-a-paradox-of-...

the article (competently) argues that china had a fairly global, capitalistic economic system in the late 1800s/early 1900s as exemplified by tea and it's influence on rural trade.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
The protectionist model of trade -- the Canton system -- and similar restrictions dramatically limit private property rights. They put trade at the service of the nation, not at the service of private self-interest; and that is not capitalist.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The Canton System was abolished in 1842.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    The root comment was arguing that British imperialism and the opium wars led China to go from "capitalism to communism" but it's not reasonable to describe the system before British imperialism as "capitalism". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23302410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23302410 The end of the Canton System after the first Opium War doesn't have any bearing on what the economics were like in the time that preceded it.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >it's not reasonable to describe the system before British imperialism as "capitalism". That root comment is sharing an interesting tidbit from the article, which is about the Chinese economy during the "Century of Humiliation."
      - solidsnack9000 6y ago
        It's the root comment's claim, that British imperialism pushed China from capitalism to communism, that is confused; not the tidbit. Mercantilism is not capitalism. It is another form of subordinated private property rights.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Everyone agrees the Opium War period was mercantilism, they are discussing the post Opium War period.
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        The root comment actually cites a section describing the First Opium War, and then says that British imperialism pushed China from capitalism to communism. Although they do not say specifically say that the period before the First Opium War is what they mean, they don't offer other clues as to the time period.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >do not say specifically say that the period before the First Opium War is what they mean,they don't offer other clues as to the time period. The post is a reaction to the article, describing how the tea trade led to a capitalist system which later fell to Communism. There's no ambiguity.
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        So in your view, there was a transition from mercantilism to capitalism following the First Opium War? And then a transition to communism thereafter?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        It's not really "my view," but I read a rather convincing argument for it. https://aeon.co/essays/the-china-tea-trade-was-a-paradox-of-global-capitalism https://aeon.co/essays/the-china-tea-trade-was-a-paradox-of-...