The 1911 Chinese Revolution: causes and social consequences

¶ … Categories

THE CHINESE REVOLUTION

The 1911 Chinese Revolution marked the end of the monarchic system in the country. Historian Arnold Toynbee argues that the revolution that broke out was a pending evolution of the political scene in China and "the over through of the Manchu dynasty was a normal event in Chinese history. (...) the new element in the Chinese revolution of 1911 was that the deposed dynasty was replaced, not by a new dynasty, but by an exotic regime inspired by the western ideology of liberal democracy. This new fact put this 20th century Chinese revolution into the same category as the English and French revolutions or the abortive liberal democratic revolution in Russia in 1917." (Toynbee, 1967, 1) However, despite the change in the political regime, there was minor if no evolution at the social level. Still, the causes of the revolution, along with the different distinct perspectives of the intellectual on the one hand, as well as the state of the common peasant in the 1900 are important for having a clear image of the actual events. Finally, the failure to determine social evolution must be seen in the wider context of the revolution.

The main cause of the events that took place in China focused in the first place on the political scene. The revolution was the reaction of the people to a failed political system. The monarchy was no longer an authority in the state. It lacked an important figure that could impose respect over its subjects. Consequently, the officials proposed and placed in office in the provinces were as well weak characters that could not have control over the events taking place at the local level. Therefore, an increased sense of decentralization emerged, which influenced the independence attempts that manifested constantly during the first decade of the 20th century.

Another cause that speeded the popular rise consisted in the social and economic shortcomings of the system. Because of the increased level of corruption in the administrative mechanism, the local population and especially peasants were forced to endure a drastic system of taxes, often set without any due regard to the poor situation of the gentry. Moreover, the beginning of the 20th century saw a rapid increase in the number of population. This phenomenon was combined with the restricted access of the commoners to landownership, because of the concentration of land in the hands of few powerful landowners. Therefore, the living conditions were precarious and they became a stringent reason for popular discontent.

These multiple aspects of the reality of early 20th century China affected intellectuals and peasants alike. Therefore, on the one hand, students in particular, those who were given the possibility to enter in contact with western cultures changed their mentalities. They became either completely disappointed with the monarchic regime or tried to change it, or they adopted a revolutionary attitude. This was largely due to the great discrepancies between the underdeveloped Chinese society and the modern western ones. Moreover, their attitude was also a reaction to the continuous discriminatory practices they were subject to in the West. The democratic ideas that were governing the French or the American societies also influenced the Chinese students and intellectuals in such a manner as to provoke their application in their country as well. On the other hand, the situation of the peasants was rather dramatic. They had been oppressed for centuries by the monarchic rule. However, now, it was the aristocratic power that practiced numerous taxes and levies, leaving the peasants without a constant income.

The final results of the revolution are worthy of notice because of their impact on the political system. The monarchic rule came to an end; still, the was little change at the local level, seeing that provincial landowners had their privileges practically unchanged. The revolution was considered to be a failure from a social point-of-view because there was little change in the living conditions of the peasants in particular. Taxes remained almost unchanged, as they were still being oppressed. The main reason for this lack of result was the limited nature of the revolution, as it manifested mostly in the Wuhan region and therefore lacked the national impact needed for enterprising such an important change in the social order.

Overall, the revolution can be seen as an important step in the evolution of the Chinese state, from a decayed weak monarchy to a young republic, which, one the late 40s revolution, would become a communist republic.

THE TREATY of VERSAILLES

The League of Nations was meant to be, by its drafters, the catalyst that offered the proper environment for communication and open diplomacy. However, the Second World War proved the limits and in the end failure of the League system. There have been numerous analyses over the reasons that determined the collapse of the League and its idealistic values. The rejection by the U.S. Congress of the Treaty and therefore the absence of the strongest state at the time to offer military guarantees was the most important shortcoming of the system envisaged by the president of the U.S. himself.

Because of the bitter rivalry that existed between the Democrats, now in minority in the legislative body, and the winning Republicans, after the loss of the Democratic majority in both Houses, being he was the only one of the leading statesmen at Paris who did not command a legislative majority in his own country." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 38), the matter of the signing of the Covenant translated into an issue of domestic policy rather than national foreign policy. In this sense, Wilson accused Senator Lodge of opposing the plans of the League, and condemned the Senate for "refusing to sign the Treaty merely because it was the product of Democratic statesmanship, thus interposing partisan envy and personal hatred in the way of peace, and renewed prosperity in the world." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 47) Indeed, the Congress, after regaining the majority wanted to be again the one to decide on the course of foreign policy.

Another reason that would explain the refusal to sign the Treaty is given by the rejection of a position that would implicate the U.S. internationally because the historical tradition of the U.S. relied heavily on the tendency towards isolationism. In this sense, "many historians argue that Americans wished to return to what President Harding called 'normalcy' the result of the slump in idealism which naturally follows in the wake of war." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 47)

Yet another reason for the republicans to reject the signing of the Treaty lied in the philosophical perception of attaining peace. While Wilson strongly believed that peace in the world could be reached without the need of military confrontation, the republicans looked at this perspective with dismay. Lodge even pointed out that idealist loyalists somehow wished "to have the world's peace assured by force without using force to do it." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 48)

The major objections of the Congress focused especially on Article 10 of the Fourteen Points presented by Wilson to the Senate. According to it, the U.S. would, in the framework of the League, place itself available for enforcing peace in the world, through deployment of forces, in case of military aggression on one of the member states. Cabot Lodge, on addressing this issue, argued that the nation must not be obligated to "put the soldiers and sailors at the disposition of other nations." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 49) in his turn, Wilson stood behind his proposal, arguing that it represents the essence of every political guarantee and it is "the very backbone of the whole Covenant." (Carroll and Herring, 1986, 50) Historians have agreed that Wilson had a rather inappropriate approach to the debate and the arguments. His aggressive defense of the Covenant, according to Schlesinger, brought along its defeat in the Senate, because it left no room for reaching common ground with the Republicans on this matter.(Schlesinger, 2003,)

No matter the conditions in which the Senate rejected the Treaty, the reasons that stood at the basis of its decision, or the actual matter they disagreed upon, the refusal to enter the League proved to be decisive for the failure of its actions.

THE NEW DEAL

The New Deal program gave birth to a lot of controversy when it was first presented on March 4, 1933, in Washington. This was largely due to the complex measures it envisaged for the recovery of the American economy that had just suffered the most dramatic economic clash in its history in 1929. The measures undertaken by President Roosevelt were the subject of heated debate because they marked the acceptance of the fact that economic liberalism in its purest form was no longer available for the society of the time and, on the other hand, it opened the door for the evolution of a more protectionist state authority.

The term of New Deal describes the period in American history from 1933 up to 1938. It comprised the set of policies promoted by the Democrats in order to redress the economic situation in America following the 1929 crach. According to most authors, there are two distinctive periods generally subscribed to the term. (Rauch, 1963, xii) the First New Deal ended in 1934, when President Roosevelt put a stop to the experimental method applied in areas such as aviation, public utilities, and banks. The second phase of the New Deal focused more on a reorientation of policies towards increased involvement in the "broad fields of agricultural, industrial labor, tariffs, money, and unemployment relief legislation." (Rauch, 1963, xiii)

The two distinctive periods of the New Deal targeted two different aims. While the first period focused on a recovery plan, one that would ensure the recovery of the American economy, the second period followed a reform plan, which focused on a strategy of economic development. The overall pan however was conceived as having complementary results. Thus, "higher prices for industry and agriculture were the immediate objective during the first period; increased purchasing power and social security for the population as a whole were the immediate objectives during the second period." (Rauch, 1963, xiii) This strategy could be explained by the economic philosophy behind the entire recovery and reform plan. Thus, in the first phase, it was important to ensure the restart of the production system, which had collapsed during the crisis years. In order to achieve this, the fiscal policy took the form of economic protectionism; this process thus created the opportunities for the national producers to recover their businesses. The second phase, on the other hand had as precondition exactly the existence of goods and therefore the strategy had to target the increase of the power of consumption. Thus, "the policies of the first period were expressions of the philosophy of economic nationalism and scarcity, while those in the second illustrated the philosophy of international economic cooperation and economic abundance." (Rauch, 1963, xiii)

The major characteristic of the period was the increased federal intervention. Up to that point, the laissez-faire liberalism had governed economic relations. Afterwards, the government considered the most efficient means of overcoming the economic crisis through a series of interventionist measures. Thus, it operated legislative modifications in the banking system, pressuring the Congress to approve laws that would guarantee the savings of the population. In addition, in addressing unemployment, the Federal Relief Administration ensured those unemployed a minimum subsistence income. The agriculture sector, as well as the housing policy became dominated by rather protectionist measures, which made some of Roosevelt's adversaries accuse him of being a communist. One such measure involved the Agricultural Adjustment Administration which in intervened on the market to influence the prices of different crops and goods. This was considered to be an attack to the system that had up until then created prices according to the offer and demand ratio.

Overall, despite controversies, the New Deal program was an important step in the recovery and reform of the American economy and society following the 1929 crash.