Miscellaneous News

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Unless an alternative to Qing would somehow stumble into the scientific method and the industrial revolution, it would not have mattered. What held back China ever since the Tang was Song-Ming rationalism. Late Ming and late Song were just as bad as late Qing. The merchants and corrupt officials of Song and Ming actively colluded to sabotage state capacity to enrich themselves, even collaborating with foreign threats. Hanjian was basically invented by the Song and the Ming. The only scenario in which China would be able to resist industrialized Europe was if a Ming successor dynasty completely purged all Chinese culutural developments post-Tang and reverted back to Tang era culture and philosophy.

Click to expand...

There were larger systemic issues and they were ones that were not specific to any one dynasty but present for pretty much all of Imperial China, to varying degrees. For example, Ming dynasty members of the Imperial family had tax exemptions. While this might not have been too significant at the founding of the dynasty, after several centuries the number of descendants had expanded considerably and the amount of tax exemptions on their assets meant state finances were actually affected resulting in the situation where the wider economy and population could grow but the state finances did not. This was not technically corruption either since these tax exemptions were legal.

Even when they were not explicitly disloyal (since these elites benefited from the dynasty and system continuing and would not want things to collapse), the concentration of wealth into these tax exempt hands meant the government starved even when the economy was doing well. Punishment and confiscation of these assets was not significant enough to make a difference, and even then many of these people had not technically violated any laws so punishing them would have been seen as arbitrary and unjust.

There was also the issue of frozen official salaries not keeping up with inflation over the time span of centuries. This issue led to the promotion of corruption since an honest low level official could be on the edge of poverty, and would also have difficulty doing their job if their subordinates were not allowed to engage in petty corruption themselves to supplement their low salaries. Corruption was so prevalent and of such magnitude even an "honest official" bonus initiated by the Qing dynasty Yongzheng emperor was insufficient to curb it since the amount of profit from corruption far out stripped any honesty bonus.

If we were to examine this issue we see this happening in modern societies as well. The wealthy (both individuals and corporations) in the US use a whole host of legal means to minimize tax, resulting in the government being in chronic deficit. They may not be explicitly disloyal but they are looking to maximize their own profit, and attempts at reining them in is seen as punishing success. The accretion of wealth into the hands of a few has been a problem throughout all of human history, and yet if success gets punished then it may reduce the initiative and willingness to innovate and take risks. The difficulty is striking a balance between these (and numerous other) factors.

nemo said:

Qin essentially stopped the development of firearms for 2 centuries, out of fear that they may be overthrown by the Hans. This alone is enough to refute your point that China would not be been better under an alternative dynasty.

Click to expand...

Well China's "Isolation" did start under the Ming and Qing inheriated it so there is that.

When even the pro-western OSINT account are flabbergasted.

Nearly all Iranian oil sanctions have been lifted for 1 month

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Unless an alternative to Qing would somehow stumble into the scientific method and the industrial revolution, it would not have mattered. What held back China ever since the Tang was Song-Ming rationalism. Late Ming and late Song were just as bad as late Qing. The merchants and corrupt officials of Song and Ming actively colluded to sabotage state capacity to enrich themselves, even collaborating with foreign threats. Hanjian was basically invented by the Song and the Ming. The only scenario in which China would be able to resist industrialized Europe was if a Ming successor dynasty completely purged all Chinese culutural developments post-Tang and reverted back to Tang era culture and philosophy.

Click to expand...

The Qing Dynasty was the successor to the Ming Dynasty. If it wanted to become a great era, it had to do better than the Ming, instead of shifting all blame onto the previous dynasty. It cannot be simply assumed that the Qing Dynasty bore no responsibility for the decline of Chinese civilization because the previous dynasty was ineffective. In this respect, modern "democratic systems" are very similar, believing that as long as they shift responsibility to the previous administration, they absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Qin Shi Huang's high historical status is due to his unification of China; Emperor Taizong of Tang brought Chinese civilization to new heights. Only those who can change the course of history deserve historical recognition, not emperors who merely complain about the previous dynasty without implementing any changes themselves.

If the previous dynasty could have achieved the reforms you described, the Qing Dynasty would not have existed!

Bellum_Romanum said:

It seems this guy has suddenly bought into the whole Nippon/Yamato “Rising Sun” fantasy.

What I cannot reconcile is the claim that China will collapse from demographic decline while Japan—with a population under 200 million—somehow sails through unscathed and even contains China on the periphery thanks to its mysterious “allies.” Which allies? What superior technology are we talking about?

Japan’s long survival has far more to do with the fact that its continental neighbors simply had no interest in an isolated island that historically contributed nothing of real value. Name one meaningful innovation or cultural export from ancient Yamato that dynastic China or Goguryeo/Joseon Korea ever adopted—I’m still waiting.

Many Chinese today have swallowed the myth of Japan as an inherently advanced civilization, a story deliberately promoted during the Meiji period to appeal to Han nationalists who never accepted the Manchu Qing as legitimate rulers. Tough luck. Had we not been tearing ourselves apart internally, and had that pivotal Ming general not opened the gates to let the Manchus march on Beijing unopposed, history might have taken a very different turn. But who knows.
One thing is certain: should Japan ever move toward nuclear weapons, neither the CPC nor the Chinese public will tolerate it. Beijing would have no choice but to crush that program—by total economic strangulation if possible, or by force if necessary.

Click to expand...

Japanese resilience is a myth.

Japan was conquered at least twice. Once by the Yayoi settlers who came through Korea, the other time by the Americans coming by the Pacific.

The Yayoi conquest from Korea was so notable that the Imperial Japanese called the Korean peninsula a "dagger pointed at the heart of Japan". From their perspective up to that time, it was the only "successful" conquest of their home islands and that's what justified them needing to take control of Korea.

This was of course, before the Americans showed them their islands could also be conquered from the Pacific and relatively easily, at that.

Besides these two conquests, there was only one other major attempted conquest of Japan and that was during the Mongol Yuan. The failure of the Mongols (mostly due to poor logistics, not knowing how to fight on completely different terrain, and weather) gave the Japanese a false sense of invincibility. But actually, that was the only other real attempt.

So 2 out of 3 times there was a major attempt at conquering Japan, Japan got conquered. That's not a great record.

Chinese are not fooled by Western propaganda anymore. Cry ab it.

5% growth in 2025 and excellent economic data for the first 2 months of 2026, the WSJ:

supercat said:

Click to expand...

无为得天下

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Unless an alternative to Qing would somehow stumble into the scientific method and the industrial revolution, it would not have mattered. What held back China ever since the Tang was Song-Ming rationalism. Late Ming and late Song were just as bad as late Qing. The merchants and corrupt officials of Song and Ming actively colluded to sabotage state capacity to enrich themselves, even collaborating with foreign threats. Hanjian was basically invented by the Song and the Ming. The only scenario in which China would be able to resist industrialized Europe was if a Ming successor dynasty completely purged all Chinese culutural developments post-Tang and reverted back to Tang era culture and philosophy.

Click to expand...

Tang achievements are honestly overrated. The dynasty was only truly prosperous during its first 100-150 years. An Lushan's rebellion wrecked Tang imperial power, and the subsequent decentralization under the jiedushi might as well be considered another "age of fragmentation" (which formally became so during the Five Dynasties & Ten Kingdoms, allowing the Liao, the Jin, and the Western Xia to annex territories from the Song).

Tang, despite being open to foreign influences and ideas, was also not that technology savvy. The core Guanlong elites basically inherited the values of the Northern Dynasties aka "horse cavalry > all." Because of this and their reliance on nomadic mercenaries / auxiliaries, they never invested much into technological innovation, like the Song did.

But if we're talking about the dynasties that truly screwed China over on the technology front, it was equally the Ming and the Qing. Both were so stuck up in their own **** (whether it's neo-Confucianism in the case of the Ming, or the Manchu banners system in the case of the Qing) that they were essentially not curious about the rest of the world. Both conducted more literary inquisitions than any other dynasty in history, and the late Ming / late Qing were text book examples of elite paranoia & paralysis causing their respective down falls.

Regardless, it's not as though China was an exception in the larger context - most of the world was like this. Europe was the actual exception, and European exceptionalism was what led to 500 years of colonial dominance - something that China could at best have imitated earlier if the Ming & Qing weren't so stuck in their ways.

But you know who wasn't stuck in their ways? The PRC. It was the PRC that led China into becoming the global industrial super power that it is today. It was the PRC that allowed China to catch up to the Europeans, and you only have to compare it to the various corrupt regimes and oligarchies of the Middle East, Africa, South America, South Asia, West Asia, etc. to see examples of what could've happened instead if a less competent government led China. So, in historical terms, the greatest Chinese "dynasty" is none other than the Chinese government today.

Eventine said:

Tang achievements are honestly overrated. The dynasty was only truly prosperous during its first 100-150 years. An Lushan's rebellion wrecked Tang imperial power, and the subsequent decentralization under the jiedushi might as well be considered another "age of fragmentation" (which formally became so during the Five Dynasties & Ten Kingdoms, allowing the Liao, the Jin, and the Western Xia to annex territories from the Song).

Tang, despite being open to foreign influences and ideas, was also not that technology savvy. The core Guanlong elites basically inherited the values of the Northern Dynasties aka "horse cavalry > all." Because of this and their reliance on nomadic mercenaries / auxiliaries, they never invested much into technological innovation, like the Song did.

But if we're talking about the dynasties that truly screwed China over on the technology front, it was equally the Ming and the Qing. Both were so stuck up in their own **** (whether it's neo-Confucianism in the case of the Ming, or the Manchu banners system in the case of the Qing) that they were essentially not curious about the rest of the world. Both conducted more literary inquisitions than any other dynasty in history, and the late Ming / late Qing were text book examples of elite paranoia & paralysis causing their respective down falls.

Click to expand...

We are looking at this with the benefit of hindsight with our modern lenses. For most of human history, technological progress was so slow as to be invisible to nearly everyone. Inventions were often seen as curiosities rather than paradigm shifting changes. Even practical inventions did not substantially change the quality of life for average people. For example, for nearly all of human history, any improvements in agricultural technique or technology did not result in a raised standard of living for peasants. It resulted in more peasants (i.e. a population increase). The political problems were the same for nearly all dynasties, namely the issue of foreign threats and the issue of internal revolt/corruption.

The solutions of the time we now know caused problems but they were a result of the technological limitations of the time. The jiedushi of Tang for example were an attempt to deal with foreign threats in a time of slow communication by empowering local governors with power to act quickly without having to wait for orders from the central government, a process that would have been slow, rigid, and unwieldy. Obviously that raised the issue of regional warlordism, but it is the same issue with Western feudalism and local dukes acting as independent warlords.

An emperor investing in things like Zheng He's treasure fleet or steam engine would have been seen in the same light as the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince pouring money into the NEOM Line city project. It would have been seen as wasteful frivolous spending on a ridiculous fantasy or white elephant project while other practical issues get neglected. (Not that I support the Line, as I do see that as a ridiculous project).

Eventine said:

Japanese resilience is a myth.

Japan was conquered at least twice. Once by the Yayoi settlers who came through Korea, the other time by the Americans coming by the Pacific.

The Yayoi conquest from Korea was so notable that the Imperial Japanese called the Korean peninsula a "dagger pointed at the heart of Japan". From their perspective up to that time, it was the only "successful" conquest of their home islands and that's what justified them needing to take control of Korea.

This was of course, before the Americans showed them their islands could also be conquered from the Pacific and relatively easily, at that.

Besides these two conquests, there was only one other major attempted conquest of Japan and that was during the Mongol Yuan. The failure of the Mongols (mostly due to poor logistics, not knowing how to fight on completely different terrain, and weather) gave the Japanese a false sense of invincibility. But actually, that was the only other real attempt.

So 2 out of 3 times there was a major attempt at conquering Japan, Japan got conquered. That's not a great record.

Click to expand...

Does Xu Fu running away from Qin to Japan count as an invasion?