Talk:Industrialization of China

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Also if someone wants to look at Peter Perdue's newest book China Marches West, the last chapter has an excellent summary of the major theories of Chinese historography.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwhitchc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomin'-based ironworking

Just what is "bloomin'-based ironworking", as used in this article? I've never encountered this term before, and searching the Internet gives very few results except for this page. 71.255.167.192 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that the page used to say BLOOMERY-based ironworking. The "bloomin'" thing has been here for like four years now. I'm fixing it. can't believe no one noticed it for four years! 71.255.167.192 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHINA GNP prior to the 17th Century Industrial Revolution

H0riz0n (talk)(talk) I listen to a lot of books on tape and remember some professor stating China had over 70 of global GNP prior to the 1st Industrial revolution. What was the effect on GNP after the 1st Industrial revolution? Can n1 comment on this.

To know more chinese economic history first

Before start working on this subject.. I would recommend all editor particpate in this subect to read Andre Gundre Frank's Reorient .. it would partially explaint the economic status of chinese at 19th century..

And there are lots of professional historian work on chinese economic history ... especially regarding this subject.. I'm too busy on working my own master degree thesis to do work here.. but I can give some clue.. chinese economic system is FAR complicate than some high school kid or normal foregin who are not chinese to think there is only self-sustained system.. professionalize farmer.. etc already existed during Song dynasty. And the monetary system of chinese also tells a high level of economic activities.. If I've time I might contribute something to this article...... 218.162.76.157 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whel, there is a fact that the per capita energy use in early modern china is estimated te be about about 20% of europe's.--RafaelG 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reOrient is actually excellent and this article shows some of the Eurocentric attitudes critiqued therein. First of all, I have deleted the section on China's per capita income, because the citation does not show what is claimed in this article. Secondly, while many certainly do claim that China had a low GDP per capita, this point has not been proven, and just as many think that there was rough parity. It is clear that labor was cheap in China than in Europe, but this may have more to do with inequality and land density. In other words, it seems that China was a productive but very unequal society.

Furthermore, I added a couple citations from reOrient to represent the favorable view toward China. It is true that China's "backwardness" is no longer taken for granted as the mainstream view (eg, see Wikipedia's "list of regions by past GDP"), so perhaps this view really should be front and center. Nonetheless, I'll let it slide for now. Agh.niyya 04:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the society within china itself varies from area to area, it is afterall, about the size of europe. like in europe, area with sea access does alot better economically, geography play a part and it is difficult to compare development directly. as for the discussion that it was more stable, i actually find it a weakness as people are less likely to change if everything is going great; i find competition between rival european kingdom to be a major factor in leading revolution. because there is a great number of government there, it have a higher chance of finding the right formula and best model will be copied by lesser administration. in a documentary created by china, it rate England highly in the development of industry, because of 1 simple administrative feature lacking in china: the patent. china was definitely more productive at that time, but without legal protection, there is not much reasoning in mass production as people can steal your methods from the factory. Akinkhoo (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mainstream view -> traditional view

What was marked as the "mainstream view" is not the mainstream view among current economic historians of China. A lot has changed since 1970.

Roadrunner (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production

When Gurdner refers to "production", what exactly does that include agriculutural production?

useless quotes added by USer:Rafael G

The accounts of all travelers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labor, and in the difficulty which a laborer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented.^[1]

The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe....The subsistence which they find there is so scanty that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship.^[2]

considering the fact that adams never even VISITED china, and the fact that rafael G has made some extremely POV edits to chinese articles, once he tried to (falsely) change the numbers of population in changan from 1 million to 600,000 and claimed "internal contradiction" while there was none and it was sourced, these quotes repersent that of a eurocentric author that has never even been to china. this smells of an edit by a use with serious issues with china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.169.4 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ the wealth of nations, vol, 2 pg 108
^ the wealth of nations, vol, 2 pg 109

"industrialization"

whoever managed to make most of this article about the premodern technological achievements of China quite apparently doesn't even understand the term "industrialization". It doesn't mean "yeah, the Song dynasty could do bloomery-based ironworking". It means the transition of an entire society from a primarily agrarian one to an industrial one, where most of the workforce is employed in the secondary sector of the economy. This never happened in China prior to the 20th century. It was a huge disaster as they tried to implement the transition in a couple of years in the 1960s. And the transition is mostly complete by now, although I am not sure whether the actual majority of Chinese work in the secondary or tertiary sector.

I suggest we simply remove the offtopic tangent on the premodern history of Chinese technology. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It trurns out that there already is a good article on this topic, at Technological and industrial history of the People's Republic of China. At Economy of the People's Republic of China we also learn that the percentage of the labor force employed in agriculture has fallen below 50% for the first time during the 1990s. It is thus reasonable to say that China was industrialized in the period of 1960 to 2000. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chinese industrialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] the wealth of nations, vol, 2 pg 108

[2] the wealth of nations, vol, 2 pg 109

[1]

[2]