The Ming Dynasty & The American Problem

The Ming’s Beginning

Prior to 1363, China was a Mongolian vassal. This changed with one man: Zhu Yuanzhang (1328-1398). Zhu was a poor novice monk who had been orphaned early on. He had seen the devastation that foreign rule could cause (namely famines and uprisings) and decided to join a rebel group to initiate change.

Within five years, the Mongol rule was over.

Zhu’s ambition was the restructuring of China, and he started with revitalising the agricultural landscape. Countless trees were planted (estimations say 1 billion mulberry trees, orchards and trees for shipbuilding in just 20 years), arable land cultivated and supplied with water, and the income from grain tripled.

________________________________________________________________________________

Pre-Trump America

The USA has been famously successful in commerce, science, entertainment… all things that make a country a powerhouse. There were hiccups up surely, but by and large, the US was ever forward facing.

Or was it?

The US, if you look a bit closer, had shown signs of becoming the victim of its own success for a while now.
Its car-centrism that makes it look outdated compared to much of Europe’s excellent train system, its unduly high output of waste (every American citizen produces 3.2kg of rubbish a day - 3x the international average) compared to Switzerland which sends 0% of waste to landfills, and its backwards attitudes towards people of colour (which in turn means a bigger neglect of those groups and a reduction in their socioeconomic value), etc.

“Americans know nothing about the world” has been a joke for a while now, which is an attitude that can only be attained by those who are living in, or believe that they are living in, a golden age. They trap themselves into thinking that advancements aren’t necessary because everthing is going swimmingly.

Cue: Donald John Trump announces his candidacy for president in June 2015.

________________________________________________________________________________

Insularity as a Trauma Response

The emperor, who would choose the name Hóngwǔ (“vastly martial”), could not forget his disdain for those who did not fight against the Mongols, so he created a regime that was absolutist. Personnel were executed on mere suspicion of disloyalty, and all ministries were to report directly to and through him.

Hóngwǔ wanted an orderly society, and the simplest way was by caste. He classified people into soliders (a category especially important to him), farmers and merchants, with separately assigned settlements and tax classes. People were not to change jobs and settled area, and that was meant to be overseen by officials.

But there weren’t enough officials to control everything and soon the tax income looked disjointed.

Especially the solider class proved problematic. Soldiers were meant to be born into their job - without considerations for predilection to the task. There was also no military budget, instead land was set aside which the solider class was meant to use for their survival.
Wealthier soliders quickly used the land as their freehold and made younger and poorer soliders work their land. They also removed themselves from active duty by paying poorer soliders to fight in their stead. Many also simply deserted.

Zhu, whose rebellious past had to be contrasted by an appeal to the Confucian elite, faced issues due to their philosophical attitudes too. Confucians had a disdain for trade. While China did not succumb to full isolationism as Japan had, it turned inward spiritually.

This new insular mentality led to conservatism in all of society, and was soon followed by trade restrictions. An incident with Japanese smugglers even led to drastic measures (the destruction of all seafaring vessels) and yet, it had little effect.

Thus, is 1551, all foreign trade was forbidden.

16 years later, all restriction were reversed as they had led to the opposite outcome.

________________________________________________________________________________

Insularity as Revenge?

When Trump became president of the USA, he gave no one illusions about his stance. “Make America Great Again” is a clear non-interventionist motto. Trump’s America is meant to be about itself, not foreign problems.

On the surface, non-interventionism is not a bad policy. To grant that other nations have the ability and should therefore be granted the right to self-determine is the basis of many countries’ international policy.

However, when coupled with Trump’s protectionism (an economic policy that assumes that the restricting, often through tarriffs, of foreign trade will increase a country’s revenue and domestic product), and his appeal to conservative attitudes fueled by American-branded Christianity, one quickly arrives at an isolationist reality.

Trump’s intentions are based on his experience as a business mogol and perhaps the Monroe Doctrine of early America. This policy from 1823, sought to stop European interference in the US on the threat of unknown measures. This policy has been in effect in the US at various time and to various degrees ever since. It is an imperial idea, a hegemony of the US over others.

To Trump, the Monroe Doctrine extends over all of the Western hemisphere.

________________________________________________________________________________

You can Count, but not Count On, Money

Zhu had no interest in any economic venture but agriculture. This wasn’t odd given his background, but it made him inflexible to progress and blind to the realities of what was needed for economic growth.
He sat his taxes very low, and assumed that people would not jerk their duties based on Confucian morality. His son echoed his attitudes and future emperors, despite changing times and new, often internal foes (wealthy landowners, scheming eunuchs, etc.), were unable to change the overreliance on agriculture and the now customary low taxes.

In the 16th century, there was an economic upturn, partially attributed to outside influences (silver from Portugal and Spain, sweet potato and potato from Latin Ameria, technological advancements, etc.), and partially due to a simplification of taxes.

But the damage was done, as the conservative, inward mentality had not changed.

This new economic boom was based on new inventions and silver, not on agricultural achievements. In fact, the value of agricultural products fell from 100 ounces of silver in 1500 to just 2 ounces of silver by 1700.

And yet, the idea what should further economic growth didn’t keep up with the new realities and farmers were expected to pay more (in coin and grain) despite earning less.

Eventually, farmers in prominent provinces rose up and due to the serious overspending of the imperial household (on itself and wars), soliders who had since been paid instead of being forced into their class, could not be afforded.

Consequently, the farmer revolts - together with attacks from the Manchus of Northern China - led to the fall of the Ming Dynasty in April 1644 when Chóngzhēn, the last Ming emperor, hung himself.

________________________________________________________________________________

There’s a DO in Dollar

The US appears to have infinite growth. Silicone Valley has a TV series. But while America has been the leader in various sectors, other countries are rapidly catching up and the Trump government, instead of supporting its advancement athletes, has reduced science, and thereby innovation, in the academic setting.

Trump hasn’t crippled the US economy yet. In fact, he de-regulated high-risk AI producers that had been required to report on their safety measures during the Biden era, and he is hell-bend to win the tech-war with China.

But just as AI can only be trained on existing knowledge, so does an economy that wants to exist in the forseeable future, need to invest in future knowledge in the form of scientists, engineers and visionaries.

Trump’s policies are useful for the energy (read: fossil-fuel) and tech sector right now, but they ignore all those academics who have already sought refuge in other countries, or those highly skilled individuals who value their personal freedom above current US salaries. They also ignore the fact that combustion fuel is not the future. Electricity is. Who leads the race in electricity-as-fuel? China. Not America. (Not even a little bit - Europe and India are also above the US in this field). Electricity is also necessary for modern warfare, an area that the US would likely want to dominate in (and that we all would probably not prefer China to unseat democracies in).

Some forward-thinking American might look at these data points and yearn for change but the average American is not inclined to support a futuristic approach either, because one of the most difficult problems of American society is its legacy of “boot strapping”, even for those without shoes.

Where Zhu had condemned the Ming dynasty to a reliance on low taxes and agriculture, no matter the changing times, so did the US and their long-standing attitude towards social welfare (one of disdain that is), condemn the US to a permanent state of “riskiness”, where every illness, every misstep, could plunge the average American into ruin.

So is the US doomed to be absorbed in its internal wars and usurped by foreign actors, as was the Ming Dynasty?

That depends if Trump gets rejected and the trump card is dealt in time.

________________________________________________________________________________