When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[Jacob]

Interesting discussion.

I agree with those who're saying the question is better framed as "what was it that led the West to succeed to the degree as it did" rather than "how did the ME go wrong."  At various times it has been widely different civilizations that were at the peak of culture and technology.  Where did the Romans go wrong?  Where did the Egyptians go wrong?  The Chinese (pick your favourite dynasty)?  The Indians (pick your favourite empire)?  And so on.

If I had to go with anything I'd say the industrial revolution (like everyone else is saying in one way or another, I think) including the way society was significantly reorganized to reflect and harness the technological changes.

That said, I tend towards a cyclical view of time as well.  The Middle East that Spellus refers to had its moment and eventually it passed.  The West is having its moment as well, but that too will pass.  Doesn't mean "it went wrong."

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd agree that no state prior to the 19th century was "modern', but that begs the question - I reject as overly deterministic the notion that there was any fundamental "orientation" to these societies that determined their destiny.

That is true enough.  My point is that the ways in which these societies evolved over time was the norm for all societies -- whether Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian or Christian; whether European or Asian or African; no matter the race or language or ethnicity or socio-economic origin of the ruling elite, for thousands of years.  There is no reason to believe that progress as we understand it was inevitable; the course of history over the centuries suggests otherwise -  instead, it was a small group of socities located on the edge of the Eurasian landmass, at a particular time in a particular place, that started to behave in a historically bizarre and aberrant fashion, that was so outlandish that even when the crude practical advantages of that odd path became apparent, the "normal" societies of the world still took their time to "catch up" - typically relunctantly, and in some cases, not at all.

In my opinion it is absurd to believe that Sung Dynasty China was more akin to the Shang than to modernity

I would put it stronger than that - just about any post-agrarian, pre-modern urbanized society has more in common with other such societies than it does with any modern society.  Even France under the Sun King is closer to ancient Mesopotamia than it is to France c. 2009.

think that the romantic legend of an unchanging pesantry is just that - a romanic legend

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

[Razgovory]

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

Well the fundementals of farming aren't going to change much at all.  I mean farmers still dig a hole, toss seeds in, and harvest what grows out.

[Malthus]

[
That is true enough.  My point is that the ways in which these societies evolved over time was the norm for all societies -- whether Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian or Christian; whether European or Asian or African; no matter the race or language or ethnicity or socio-economic origin of the ruling elite, for thousands of years.  There is no reason to believe that progress as we understand it was inevitable; the course of history over the centuries suggests otherwise -  instead, it was a small group of socities located on the edge of the Eurasian landmass, at a particular time in a particular place, that started to behave in a historically bizarre and aberrant fashion, that was so outlandish that even when the crude practical advantages of that odd path became apparent, the "normal" societies of the world still took their time to "catch up" - typically relunctantly, and in some cases, not at all.

I disagree. The progress since the last ice age has been pretty near continuous - from hunter-gatherers, the development of agriculture, the creation of cities, etc.

I would put it stronger than that - just about any post-agrarian, pre-modern urbanized society has more in common with other such societies than it does with any modern society.  Even France under the Sun King is closer to ancient Mesopotamia than it is to France c. 2009.

This is simply factually false - the use of the deep plough, changes to harness which allowed horses to be used instead of oxen in farming, developments in the storage and processing of foods, use of wind and water mills, the introduction of important new crops - all transformed farming and the pesantry utterly since mesopotamian times, in ways that are quite fundamental.

Hell, even the staples of the European diet such as corn, potatoes and tomatoes are imports from the new world.

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

Again, simply not true.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is simply factually false - the use of the deep plough, changes to harness which allowed horses to be used instead of oxen in farming, developments in the storage and processing of foods, use of wind and water mills, the introduction of important new crops - all transformed farming and the pesantry utterly since mesopotamian times, in ways that are quite fundamental.

The deep plow allowed the harder European soils to be tilled more easily; horses drawn plows allowed tilling to be done faster and more efficiently, powered mills made the process of making flour to be more efficient.  But all these technological changes did not boost yield efficiency in Europe even to levels reached by Sumer in its heydey.  They were incremental improvements that allowed European agriculture to come close to producing the surpluses that could be generated by the Nile and the great river valleys.  They did reduce some of the physical burdens on the European peasantry.  But "tranform utterly"? - I think not.  A 17th century European peasant still followed the same rhythms of farm life, and employed similar (if improved versions of) tools, and had a similar lifestyle as a 16th century European peasant or a 13th century European peasant or a Celtic European peasant.   What wholly and utterly changed that was  mechanical reapers and threshers, the railroad, the canals, the telegraph -- the whole series of revolutions in transport, communication and mechanical production - all married to new ideology of production and organization of work that was fundamentally different from everything that had come before.  An ideology that would annihilate the very concept of peasant-dom.

[Razgovory]

The deep plow allowed the harder European soils to be tilled more easily; horses drawn plows allowed tilling to be done faster and more efficiently, powered mills made the process of making flour to be more efficient.  But all these technological changes did not boost yield efficiency in Europe even to levels reached by Sumer in its heydey.  They were incremental improvements that allowed European agriculture to come close to producing the surpluses that could be generated by the Nile and the great river valleys.  They did reduce some of the physical burdens on the European peasantry.  But "tranform utterly"? - I think not.  A 17th century European peasant still followed the same rhythms of farm life, and employed similar (if improved versions of) tools, and had a similar lifestyle as a 16th century European peasant or a 13th century European peasant or a Celtic European peasant.   What wholly and utterly changed that was  mechanical reapers and threshers, the railroad, the canals, the telegraph -- the whole series of revolutions in transport, communication and mechanical production - all married to new ideology of production and organization of work that was fundamentally different from everything that had come before.  An ideology that would annihilate the very concept of peasant-dom.

Not fair.  For one, Europe and the Nile aren't comparable.  They are different places.  The Nile is much more naturally fertile.  Second in the country that mechanical reapers and threshers and railroads didn't annihilate the concept of peasantdom because that concept was already gone by the time they were invented.  It did in other countries that were less technologically advanced. It was the end of the mediveal concepts of peasentry that led to these labor saving devices.  Not the other way around.

[saskganesh]

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

Well the fundementals of farming aren't going to change much at all.  I mean farmers still dig a hole, toss seeds in, and harvest what grows out.

wow.  I don't even know where to begin.

[Razgovory]

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

Well the fundementals of farming aren't going to change much at all.  I mean farmers still dig a hole, toss seeds in, and harvest what grows out.

wow.  I don't even know where to begin.

Farmers do that right?

[saskganesh]

It's not romantic at all.  But the fact is that the fundamental economic realities of peasant life and even basic methods and technologies of production didn't change much from the times ancient riverine civilizations to the late 19th century and beyond.

Well the fundementals of farming aren't going to change much at all.  I mean farmers still dig a hole, toss seeds in, and harvest what grows out.

wow.  I don't even know where to begin.

Farmers do that right?

the only thing in common with peasants is the "harvest what comes up" part. my take, we've had maybe three fundamental shifts in ag over the last century, involving:
1) mechanisation
2) chemical (post ww2)
3) biological (80's onward, includes both GMO and Organic philosophies.)

[Malthus]

This is simply factually false - the use of the deep plough, changes to harness which allowed horses to be used instead of oxen in farming, developments in the storage and processing of foods, use of wind and water mills, the introduction of important new crops - all transformed farming and the pesantry utterly since mesopotamian times, in ways that are quite fundamental.

The deep plow allowed the harder European soils to be tilled more easily; horses drawn plows allowed tilling to be done faster and more efficiently, powered mills made the process of making flour to be more efficient.  But all these technological changes did not boost yield efficiency in Europe even to levels reached by Sumer in its heydey.  They were incremental improvements that allowed European agriculture to come close to producing the surpluses that could be generated by the Nile and the great river valleys.  They did reduce some of the physical burdens on the European peasantry.  But "tranform utterly"? - I think not.  A 17th century European peasant still followed the same rhythms of farm life, and employed similar (if improved versions of) tools, and had a similar lifestyle as a 16th century European peasant or a 13th century European peasant or a Celtic European peasant.   What wholly and utterly changed that was  mechanical reapers and threshers, the railroad, the canals, the telegraph -- the whole series of revolutions in transport, communication and mechanical production - all married to new ideology of production and organization of work that was fundamentally different from everything that had come before.  An ideology that would annihilate the very concept of peasant-dom.

Comparing agriculture in the valleys of mesopotamia to the pesantry of Europe is not comparing apples with apples. They were quite utterly unlike. The total yeilds of grains is not the best comparator for similarity.

Also, it was not the railroad and the like that transformed pesantry in Europe so much as the ending of serfdom - which in some places predates the industrial revolution and in other places lagged behind. Certainly a 17th century Dutch farmer resembled a labouring peasant of Sumer not at all in any meaningful sense, had more in common with a family farmer in modern day southern Ontario.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not fair.  For one, Europe and the Nile aren't comparable.  They are different places.  The Nile is much more naturally fertile. 

That is true, but doesn't respond to my point.  Fairness is not at issue.

Second in the country that mechanical reapers and threshers and railroads didn't annihilate the concept of peasantdom because that concept was already gone by the time they were invented. 

Not so - you are confusing peasantdom with the juridical concept of serfdom.  There were French and German and Italian peasants in the 19th century.  In the 20th century in fact.

This isn't a commentary on their social status, or their rights before the law, or even their relative levels of freedom.  All these things could differ radically from place to place and time and time.  It is a commentary on the basic physical and economic realities of pre-industrial agricultural life.

[Oexmelin]

An impartial observer in the early 1200s would have done no such thing, because an impartial observer of that time would have no understanding of the concept of "progress" as we understand it.  The only understanding of social evolution at the time centered around one of two theories - cyclical time (eternal cycles of rise and fall - e.g. ibn Khaldun's schema) or millenarian time (a fall from a golden or prelapsarian age to present decadence to be followed by a future return to a just order).  The idea of steady material and political progress would have been totally alien.  This is not merely an academic point - it explains the the fundamental reality of human existence starting from the urban revolutions some 5000+ years ago to the extraordinary revolution in productivity of the last 200 years.

That is really the key point.

[crazy canuck]

[
That is true enough.  My point is that the ways in which these societies evolved over time was the norm for all societies -- whether Islamic, Buddhist, Confucian or Christian; whether European or Asian or African; no matter the race or language or ethnicity or socio-economic origin of the ruling elite, for thousands of years.  There is no reason to believe that progress as we understand it was inevitable; the course of history over the centuries suggests otherwise -  instead, it was a small group of socities located on the edge of the Eurasian landmass, at a particular time in a particular place, that started to behave in a historically bizarre and aberrant fashion, that was so outlandish that even when the crude practical advantages of that odd path became apparent, the "normal" societies of the world still took their time to "catch up" - typically relunctantly, and in some cases, not at all.

I disagree. The progress since the last ice age has been pretty near continuous - from hunter-gatherers, the development of agriculture, the creation of cities, etc.

Really?

Empires have risen and crumbled.  Dark ages have lasted for hundreds of years in various regions before they recovered and some never did.

One of the great fallacies is to look at where western society is now and try to trace a continuous thread of development from the beginning of human society to where we are now.  It doesnt exist.  There are too many twists and turns along the way.

[garbon]

One of the great fallacies is to look at where western society is now and try to trace a continuous thread of development from the beginning of human society to where we are now.  It doesnt exist.  There are too many twists and turns along they way.

Indeed, the loss of many great Greek texts for hundreds of years should point that out.

[The Minsky Moment]

Comparing agriculture in the valleys of mesopotamia to the pesantry of Europe is not comparing apples with apples. They were quite utterly unlike.

They are unlike in many details, but like in critical respects.  The are like in the key respect that peasant life is characterized by being completely subject to the seasons the weather and the climate; subject to the cycles of famine and plenty, and living a highly localized life rooted in the land, involving heavy labor powered by human and/or animal power.  And in that the vast majority of producers lived just at or above subsistence.

The total yeilds of grains is not the best comparator for similarity.

No such claim was made.  The point is that technological innovation in European agriculture was simply a pre-requisite for closing in the yield advantage enjoyed by the riverine empires.  It didn't fundamentally change the nature of life or society.  It just made work more efficient and made it easier to produce surpluses.  It didn't change them into radically different socities.

Also, it was not the railroad and the like that transformed pesantry in Europe so much as the ending of serfdom - which in some places predates the industrial revolution and in other places lagged behind. Certainly a 17th century Dutch farmer resembled a labouring peasant of Sumer not at all in any meaningful sense, had more in common with a family farmer in modern day southern Ontario.

I notice you changed my example from a Frenchman to a Dutchman.   

I don't know much about 17th century Dutch farming per se but it is true that the "great divergence" begins in northern Europe and its roots can be traced back to the 18th and perhaps the 17th centuries.  At some point, groups of agricultural producers in this time and place do become connected to the emerging market system in a more autonomous way.  So you may be right about your Dutch farmer - but that doesn't respond to my argument.