By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: If China was still a monarchy...
If the Empress Dowager didn't cede control early last century...
If it was allowed to keep its power (in some ways similar to half of Europe).
If the line was continued...
How would China be now?
I can't help bu think this place would be so much better...
Of course, Monarchs rule. ;-p
Mateusz:
That pun was awful... but I begrudgingly upvote because I must =p
ScotsAlan:
Ha ha.
I remember when I wanted to borrow a ruler at work. I used Google translate ( it was a while ago), showed my phone to someone....
"Why do you want a King?"
Shining_brow:
Remember to stick to using just 1 language... might be embarrassing to say "I want a good Wang-king".
Of course, Monarchs rule. ;-p
Mateusz:
That pun was awful... but I begrudgingly upvote because I must =p
ScotsAlan:
Ha ha.
I remember when I wanted to borrow a ruler at work. I used Google translate ( it was a while ago), showed my phone to someone....
"Why do you want a King?"
Shining_brow:
Remember to stick to using just 1 language... might be embarrassing to say "I want a good Wang-king".
If my aunt had a pair she'd be my uncle... you know...
Ok I'll play. Maybe the inner regions would be separated in several medium sized poor countries no one cares about, then the coastal areas would be say two smallish but wealthy countries with Beijing/Shanghai on the north and Greater Canton on the south, possibly attached to Guangxi. The rest be rural areas/countries feeding the coast. None of which would be close to be a superpower but maybe a financial center or two.
I don't know, I'm just saying that at random.
No since Confucian thoughts and values are the problem. Not the leadership.
The reason why Japan became the only great power in East Asia until recently was because they got rid on Confucianism following the Meiji Restoration in the 19th century.
Japanese became able to question themselves and their own values as well to admit that other cultures, other countries could be better than them. They then worked hard to improve themselves as to surpass other countries, it was the beginning of Japanese imperialism. Nowadays Chinese still have some problems to admit that China is not the center of the world, and they see no reason to improve themselves as they think that they are already the best in everything.
In the 1950s, no one thought that Confucian South Korea could ever become a great power. Its people loved gambling, showing off and having fake status, just like Chinese nowadays. It was only after they got rid of Confucian thoughts that they were able to become what they are now, through hard working and not guanxi. China only has a big population, it is a profoundly inefficient society.
DrMonkey:
Korea, now purged of Confucean values ? From what I read in Korea expat websites, not quite :)
gouxiong:
I think your comment fails to explain why China was dominant to the region for over millenium. However I tend to agree with you partly that successful where the emperors who declared Confucius values but did not exercise them fully in contradiction to those who implemented it totally (that may also assist explain the raise of Xia during Song dynasty but not fully already fall of MIng).
Artexerxes101:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read and I made an account just so I can say this.
The problem with your argument is that you attribute the problems to Confucianism, but you never state why it's Confucianism's fault.
Also, you think correlation is causation. Just because China isn't as developed as Japan or Korea, it has to be Confucianism by your logic.
The thing is, I'm not defending Confucianism, but I am just pointing out how stupid you sound. Plenty of scholars have attributed Confucianism to the success of industrialization in China, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and even Japan and Korea because it taught them to work hard to achieve their goals.
I think it would have converged to something similar to what China is now. Same if the KMT won the civil war. The monarchy had similar ideals and objectives to the KMT and the CCP : strong rule, nationalism, centralism, a form of exceptionalism ("we are special with a manifest destiny"), lots of emphasis on how things look, but a disdain for implementation and maintenance of things, a certain vision of humanism.
Frankly speaking, I do not see no any nation needing a Monarchy (of whatever kind).
I see no reason why a monarch would not have been able to mismanage the country just as well as the party. One of the problems with monarchy is the same as the problem with dictatorship, that the prime interest is to stay in power rather than drive society in the right direction. The party has economical growth as a tool to stay in power rather than a goal in itself.
Very few countries have absolute monarchies these days. I think only a few middle east states and maybe some in Africa.
Interesting question. I have read a few books about the last emperor Pu Yi. He certainly had an interesting life.
I don't think an absolute Monarchy in China would have survived the 20th century. If they had survived to have absolute rule I think the country would have fragmented. As methods of communication improved through the 20th century there is no way an absolute ruler could have held control.
There would have been a revolution of some sort.
I was thinking, perhaps things might have gone the way Russia did in the times of Peter the Great - looking around the world and saying "Crap, we really need to get ourselves up to speed - we look like bumpkins"... and thus, a huge leap forward in culture, economics, manufacturing, etc etc.
As for how monarchies fare... obviously, it depends on the monarchs! Most obviously let the normal 'government' handle things, while still retaining a semblance of power.
Genghis Khan sort of did that, hence becoming more Chinese than Mongolian...
