|
玉溪翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：VI ConclusionI think that, after 1800, southern China and the United Kingdom of England, does not have a comparative value. China and Western Europe say split the development process, is not in 1800, or even Columbus discovered the American continent around 1500, but in the 9th century AD, when the established feudal society. Of course, more profound studies suggest that, in Western Europe and China, natural and geographical conditions are significantly different. Since the people living in these two natural conditions significantly different geographical time, they begin to follow a different path (in fact China did not move forward in the Qin and Han dynasties, society does not always move forward, so should be more precise "Run"). From an economic point of view, the subjective motivations of human activity are the same, are to meet their own needs. Degree of social development in different parts of the differences, not because of the overall intelligence of its inhabitants different, not because there has been a great chance of a regional character and promoting social development and other regions of the reactionary character hindered the progress of history, but because people encountered in different regions with different natural and geographical conditions. Social structure and economic and political systems, are in a particular economic environment and its changes in the objective conditions of the result of rational choice.
From a macro point of view, Huang Ming-Qing Jiangnan and the same period of British knowledge of the situation is realistic. He correctly recognized that, far before the industrial revolution, the United Kingdom has been formed and the emergence of the "agricultural revolution, proto-industrialization, urban development, population and consumer behavior changes such as transformation of 'the five changes' trend," and the "extremely early British coal industry Development of coincidence "that they are a necessary condition for the occurrence of the industrial revolution. The "18th-century China's Yangtze River Delta is not a condition with any of them", so China can not quickly developed. Therefore, as a historian, Huang is undoubtedly excellent.
But as a historical theorist, Huang perhaps even second-rate is not really. His "involution" theory of modern China as how outdated analytical tools, and not much of a role. Fortunately, Mr. Wong knew that "involution" and not as "on the development / non-development of a general 'theory'" (Huang: "continued on the eighteenth-century Britain and China - the rebuttal of Kenneth Pomeranz's answer"). As the economic history of the South a "view", "involution" of the concept for us to understand the specific circumstances of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan, it should be said is helpful.
Li Bozhong through his "British model, south road and the seeds of capitalism" that, he studied the history of the Ming and Qing Jiangnan economy paid a staggering effort, also made a lot of people find it difficult to obtain success. But the argument overall, although he passed on the British model and the Chinese Ming and Qing Jiangnan model comparison correctly recognized that, "If there is no invasion of the West, South is almost impossible for the modern British industrial revolution", but he used analysis tools to see, he is not able to study the history of economic theory and economic well together, the results of his argument should not have appeared in some of the defects.
|