Is the decline of China in Qing Dynasty really due to its closed door?

I think it's too narrow to simply close the door to the outside world, and the fundamental reason should be that we lost the opportunity to realize modernization in the tide of world modernization.

As for why China lost such an opportunity, closing the door is only one of the reasons. Even if China opens its foreign trade, I don't think China can realize its self-modernization smoothly. After all, China's politics, economy, culture and society have shown extraordinary stability, and it is difficult to break through without great strength.

After a long time, this dividing line appeared again.

Closing the door to the outside world is not the root cause of China's decline. We can cite several arguments.

First of all, China's closed door is not completely closed: private trade is always carried out in private; Official trade has not been completely banned-the "Shang Hong" system provides a channel for trade, and the tributary system provides a "political-economic" structure in East Asia; Western missionaries, businessmen and diplomatic envoys did not get official permission, but they always existed in China, and even during the reign of Kangxi, they had influence and achievements in the political field.

But the information transmitted by this communication channel has never touched the fundamental structure of China; Even the economic turmoil caused by the massive inflow of silver into the United States has not attracted attention. The reason is not just so-called arrogance. At that time, China was in the position of the central imperial power in the "tributary system", and its self-awareness and position in the structure were detached, and its economy, culture and system were superior. Only China exported the culture and system to the Han cultural circle, but hardly imported it, which is in line with the consciousness of distinguishing between China and foreign countries. China has always been in an advantageous position in economy, and its natural economy has low dependence on foreign countries. On the contrary, tea, porcelain and silk are exported in large quantities. The combination of two objective reasons leads to China's lack of motivation to expand and import new culture.

Secondly, even after the ban was lifted, China's modernization was not implemented smoothly. Compared with Japan's Shiwan system, its process is too difficult, with great resistance and repetition, which shows the great inertia of the old system. Even after many wars, it was occupied for the first time and became a so-called "foreigner government", completely "semi-feudal and semi-colonial". The New Deal in the late Qing Dynasty (the last decade of the late Qing Dynasty) could not complete the constitutional reform of the monarchy, which shows the high stability of the system.

Third, China's so-called "decline" needs quotation marks. Of course, we will feel ashamed and indignant, because for most of the country's 3,000-year history, the Han regime was the first-class class in the cultural circle and even the world, and it was the class with the highest voice. Compared with the late Qing Dynasty, it really declined. On the other hand, China is so rich that it can preserve its independent political power and state system, and its economic scale has always been at a high level in the world. Although its industry is weak, compared with other countries lost in the tide of modernization, it is still quite complete and healthy-the decline of China is relative, relative to psychological expectations and relative to international status.

Above.

Because of the dividing line added after a long time of comment.

The debate about the legitimacy of the Qing Dynasty is almost meaningless. In essence, this is not a historical issue, but a political issue, even a realistic political issue. This point does not need to be expanded, and it is not suitable for expansion.

Back in modern times, did the Qing dynasty rule need to be responsible for the decline of modern China? Need. I never forgave the Qing Dynasty. In particular, the Qing dynasty brought a very special problem: ethnic issues. The contradiction between Manchu and Han caused great social, political and economic internal friction. For example, there were many coups in the late Qing Dynasty, the official system was dual-track, and local Han officials tended to leave, so the central government had to hand over the leadership to Manchu relatives. Would it be different if it was the Han regime? Yes, I will.

What are the advantages of the Han regime? Briefly say a few points. For example, the change of Han regime will reduce the impact on Jiangnan, at least the three massacres in Jiangnan and Taiping Heavenly Kingdom may not happen or the intensity will be reduced, which will further develop the social economy in Jiangnan, which was already quite developed at that time. Maybe China really has a chance to go capitalist. For another example, it is difficult for the Han regime to completely solve the problems in Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. One of the achievements of the Qing Dynasty was that the traditional border problem was almost completely solved, so there was not enough threat from others, so that after Kangxi, the armaments were extremely slack and military science and technology did not develop. If there is a threat from Mongolia and Japan, the situation is likely to get better (at the cost that the territory of China may be difficult to reach the level of the Qing Dynasty). For another example, the Han regime would not have the problem of feeding the Eight Banners of Manchu Dynasty, and there would be no dispute between the Eight Banners and green camp. However, it must be noted that the Eight Banners and Manchu generals also performed well in the face of foreign aggression in the late Qing Dynasty.

These points are all special problems brought by the Qing dynasty, which have great influence, but I don't think it is a hidden worry. I doubt very much whether a Han regime can maintain enough vitality, strength and openness until the establishment of People's Republic of China (PRC) 200 years ago. You know, the Ming dynasty was also closed to the outside world. Why do people only blame the Qing Dynasty?

In addition, I hope you don't underestimate the complexity of a "country" structure, which is a complete structure, including large and small. The Qing dynasty was not defeated in the war because there were no foreign guns. According to teacher Mao Haijian's "The Collapse of China", the mobility of the Qing army is extremely poor. The main function of the local garrison is internal security rather than foreign war. Their military thinking is backward, their weapons are poorly maintained, their combat methods are backward, their soldiers are poorly trained, their physical fitness is backward, the communication mechanism between local and central authorities is not smooth, there is a huge information gap, and there is no diplomacy between officials and ministers ... These problems are even military, and they do not involve politics and economy in depth, which can already show that the fall of China is not just.

Can the systematic military science in the west in the past hundred years be achieved overnight? Can the establishment of local fortifications be achieved overnight? At that time, the army suited to China's national conditions could only be changed overnight. The physical quality of soldiers is related to the overall productivity level of the country. How can it be easily improved? Where does the military expenditure come from? How to speed up communication? How to enhance the mobility? This is the whole problem of modernity.

Above, thank you for your discussion. I will reply here in a unified way and will not discuss it in the comments.