prominent a role than he does to imperialism as an ultimate 65-66).Tseng's view that the economy is not expandable,and that cause of China's transformation. foreign economic activity is always at the expense of Chinese economic activity,is analogous to Isaacs'argument that foreign trade and industry stifled Chinese handicrafts and industry.Tseng's view that China is self-sufficient and does not need the barbarians,while the barbarians need Chinese goods.is analagous to Isaacs'argument that foreign economic activity only drains China of her wealth.Tseng's vicw that the ruler is responsible for popular welfare and that worsening conditions may endanger the dynasty is analogous to Isaacs'argument that the Chinese revolution was a response to immiseration brought on by imperialism.Perhaps these parallels testify to the existence of certain shared points of common wisdom about imperialism's effects between Westerners and Chinese,Marxists and non-Marxists-sharcd NOTES points which were not adequately tested against the facts by their formulators. .I am grateful to Stephen Andors,Joseph Esherick,Steven Levine, 10.Rhoads Murphey,The Treaty Ports and Cbina's Modernization Perry Link,Walter Nimocks,Carl Riskin and Ernest Young for valuable Wbat Went Wrong?(Ann Arbor,Mich.:Center for Chinese Studies, comments on the present essay.Participants at a colloguium at the Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies No.7,1970),32-44. Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan also made 11.!wight H.Perkins,Agricultural Development in Cbina useful criticisms.The usual disclaimer that the author remains 1368-1968(Chicago:Aldine,1969)185 and passim. responsible for the view expressed acquires special force in this 12.Ramon H.Myers,Tbe Cbinese Peasant Economy:Agricultural instance,since a number of commentators disagreed with points made Development in Hopei and Sbantung,1890-1949 (Cambridge,Mass.: here. Harvard University Press,1970),13-24. 13.lbd.,273-295, 1.James Peck,"The Roots of Rhctoric:The Professional Ideology 14.Albert lcuerwerker,Tbe Cbinese Economy,c.1870-1911(Ann of America's China Watchers,"Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scbolars Arbor,Mich.:Center for Chinese Studies,Michigan Papers in Chinese Il:1 (October 1969).59-69;reprinted in Edward Friedman and Mark Studies No.5,1969),17-31.Cf.further Jack M.Potter,Capitalism and tbe Cbinese Peasant (Berkeley:University of California Press,1968) Selden,eds.,America's Asia:Dissenting Essays on Asian-American 179-182. Relations (New York:Vintage,1971),40-66.Citations here are to the Bulletin. 15.G.William Skinner,"Marketing and Social Structure in Rural 2.1bd.,64-65 China,"Journal of Asian Studies XXIV:1 (November 1964),3-43. 16.However,the import of foreign yarn gave an impetus to the 3.bid.,65 4.For the convenience of readers,I will refer to the second revised domestic cloth weaving industry,which expanded.Foreign woven cloth was unable to dominate the Chinese market.See edition (Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1961;New York: Athencum,1966,paperback).However,I have checked the relevant Lcon0y,1870-1911,18-29 passages with the first edition (London: 17.Silk and tea are mentioned here to give a rounded picture of the Secker and Warburg,1938). Despite many small changes of word and phrasc,the essential meaning health of handicrafts,but it should be noted that the decline in export of the passages cited from the first two chapters remains unchanged in demand for these items cannot be regarded as an effect of imperialism: the second revised edition. rather,the very existence of export demand was an effect of 5.Isaacs is not mentioned in Peck's footnotes,but the sources for a imperialism revolutionary Marxist viewpoint which are cited (Mandel,Horowitz 18.Chi-ming Hou,Foreign Investment and Ecomomic Development Belden,Myrdal)would not be convenient foci for a discussion of China in Cbina,1840-1937 (Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press, either because they do not themselves focus on China or because (in 1965).Hou's major findings are confirmed by John E.Schrecker, Belden's case)the analysis is less complete that Isaacs'.Instead of Imperialism and Cbinese Nationalism:Germany Sbantung Isaacs,of course,one could select Fei Hsiao-t'ung,Ho Kan-chih, or (Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1971):sec,especially other authors,but Isaacs is convenient because his discussion of the 258. effects of imperialism in China is exceptionally clear and well-rounded, 19.Albert leuerwerker.The Cbinese Economy,1912-1949 (Ann and is concentrated in two chapters of the book.In any case.the Arbor,Mich.:Center for Chinese Studies,Michigan Papers in Chinese important thing is not precisely whose views are discussed,but to Studies No.1.1968),14. discuss a set of views that are clearly laid out,susceptible to proof or 20.Ibid..17-19.One might,however,arguc that a strong disproof on the basis of evidence,sufficiently influential to repay the government investment program could have compensated for the effort of discussion,and which adequately represent the gist of the absence of market demand in the initial stages of industrialization.If it revolutionary Marxist interpretation.Isaacs'book certainly fulfills the were possible to trace the weakness of the Chinese government's first three criteria;and if I am mistaken in thinking it fulfills the last industrial investment program to imperialism,the case for ascribing a this article will provide an occasion for others to clarify where a major detrimental economic impact to imperialism would be revolutionary Marxist view diverges from Isaacs. established.But this would require evidence that either the political 6.These well-known facts can be checked in John K.Fairbank, weakness of the government or the shortage of capital for government Edwin O.Reischauer and Albert M.Craig,last Asia:Tbe Modern investment was due to imperialism.The latter point is treated in note Transformation (Boston:Houghton Mifflin.1965).I do not discuss 22.The former,restated in Isaacs'terms (i.e..that by strengthening the here the direct invasion of China by Japan in the twentieth century;of forces of reaction imperialism postponed the arrival of a truly strong U.S.intervention in the Chinese civil war since the 1940s.These had government which could undertake an industrialization program).is serious effects on China.But Peck implicitly and Issacs explicitly are discussed later in the essay. 21.1bd,70. talking about imperialism in its late nineteenth and early twentieth century form,and I think it is a validly separable question what the 22.The impact of the foreign drain was probably more serious in pre-1937 impact of imperialism was on China. some areas of the country than in others because of the varying 7.I am indebted for this estimate to Roy M.Hofheinz,Jr. effectiveness of tax collection.But the more serious the impact of the 8.The quotation is from Hudson Taylor,as cited in Paul A.Cohen, drain of wealth in one locality,the less serious the impact in the rest of China and Cbristianity:The Missionary Movement and tbe Growtb of the nation.Rescarch may disclose either that the impact was Chinese Antiforeignism,1860-1870.(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard widespread but slight,or that it was heavy but localized.In either case. University Press,1963),78-79. the impact would not be capable of explaining an overall trend,if there 9.Issacs.Tragedy.4.5.7,11,23,31.Isaacs'Marxist argument is was one,toward poverty or economic weakness. paraliel in some interesting ways to Tseng Kuo-fan's Confucian view in It may be argued,however,that the sums drained from China were 1867 of what imperialism was doing to China (see John K.Fairbank precisely the crucial amounts that would have stimulated economic and Ssu-yu Teng,Cbina's Response to the West:A Documentary takeoff if they had been invested in industry (cf.note 20).The obvious Survey,1839-1923,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1961 rejoinder is to ask how likely it is that,in the absence of imperialism, 7I prominent a role than he does to imperialism as an ultimate cause of China's transformation. I i I I NOTES I • I am grateful to Stephen Andors, joseph Esherick, Steven Levine, j Perry Link, Walter Nimocks, Carl Riskin and Ernest Young for valuable comments on the present essay. Participants at a colloquium at the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan also made useful criticisms. The usual disclaimer that the author remains i responsible for the view expressed acquires special force in this instance, since a number of commentators disagreed with points made here. 1. james Peck, "The Roots of Rhetoric: The Professional Ideology of America's China Watchers," Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 1 11:1 (October 1969), 59-69; reprinted in Edward Friedman and Mark Selden, eds., America's Asia: Dissenting Essays on Asian·American I ;~ Relations (New York: Vintage, 1971), 40-66. Citations here are to the Bulletin. 2. Ibid., 64-65. 3. Ibid., 65. 4. For the convenience of readers, I will refer to the second revised edition (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1961; New York: Atheneum, 1966, paperback). However, I have checked the relevant passages with the first edition (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1938). Despite many small changes of word and phrase, the essential meaning of the passages cited from the first two chapters remains unchanged in the second revised edition. 5. Isaacs is not mentioned in Peck's footnotes, but the sources for a revolutionary Marxist viewpoint which are cited (Mandel Horowitz Belden, Myrdal) would not be convenient foci for a discussi~n of Chin~ either because they do not themselves focus on China or because (in Belden's case) the analysis is less complete that Isaacs'. Instead of Isaacs, of course, one could select Fei Hsiao-t'ung, Ho Kan·chih, or other authors, but Isaacs is convenient because his discussion of the effects of imperialism in China is exceptionally clear and well-rounded, and is conccntrated in two chapters of the book. In any case, the important thing is not precisely whose views arc discussed, but to discuss a set of views that are clearly laid out, susceptible to proof or disproof on the basis of evidence, sufficiently influential to repay the effort of discussion, and which adequately represent the gist of the revolutionary Marxist interpretation. Isaacs' book certainly fulfills the first three criteria; and if I am mistaken in thinking it fulfills the last, this article will provide an occasion for others to clarify where a revolutionary Marxist view diverges from Isaacs. 6. These well-known facts can be checked in john K. Fairbank, Edwin O. Reischauer and Albert M. Craig, East Asia: The Modern Transformation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965). , do not discuss here the direct invasion of China by Japan in the twentieth century; of I U.S. intervention in the Chinese civil war since the I940s. These had serious effects on China. But Peck implicitly and Issacs explicitly are talkmg about Imperialism in its late nineteenth and early twentieth century form, and , think it is a validly separable question what the pre-I 9 37 impact of imperialism was on China. 7. I am indebted for this estimate to Roy M. Hofheinz, Jr. 8. The quotation is from Hudson Taylor, as cited in Paul A. Cohen, I Chi.na and C~ristia.nity: The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chrnese Antiforergmsm, 1860-1870. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963),78-79. 9.lssacs, Tragedy, 4, 5, 7, 11,23, 31. Isaacs' Marxist argument is I parallel in some interesting ways to Tseng Kuo-fan's Confucian view in 1867 of what imperialism was doing to China (see John K. Fairbank and Ssu-yU Te~, China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839-1923, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961, I I I j 65·66). Tseng's view that the economy is not expandable, and that foreIgn economic activity is always at the expense of Chinese economic activity, is analogous to lsa~cs' argument that foreign trade and md.ustry stifled <:h.mese handicrafts and industry. Tseng's view that Chma IS self-suffiCient and does not need the barbarians while the barbarians need Chinese goods, is analagous to Isaacs' ar~ment that foreign economic activity only drains China of her wealth. Tseng's view that .t~e ruler is responsible for popular welfare and that worsening conditIons may endanger the dynasty is analogous to Isaacs' argument that the Chmese revolutIOn was a response to immiseration brought on by Imperialism. Perhaps these parallels testify to the existence of certain shared points of common wisdom about imperialism's effects between Westerners and Chinese, Marxists and non-Marxists-shared points which were not adequately tested against the facts by their formu lators. 10. Rhoads Murphey, The Treaty Ports and China's Modernization: What Went Wrong?(Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for Chinese Studies Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies No.7, 1970),32-44. ' 11. !)wight H. Perkins, Agricultural Development in China 1368-1968 (Chicago: Aldine, 1-969) 185 and passim. ' 12. Ramon H. Myers, The Chinese Peasant Economy: Agricultural Development in Hopei and Shantung, 1890-1949 (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), 13-24_ 13. Ibid., 273-295. 14. Albert 'o'euerwerker, The Chinese Economy, c. 1870-1911 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for Chinese Studies, Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies No.5, 1969), 17-31. Cf. further Jack M. Potter, Capitalism and the Chinese Peasant (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 179-182. 15. G. William Skinner, "Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China," Journal ofAsian Studies XXIV: 1 (November 1964), 3-43. 16. However, the import of foreign yarn gave an impetus to the domestic doth weaving industry, which expanded, Foreign woven doth was unable to dominate the Chinese market. See Feuetwerker I!'conomy, 1870-1911, 18-29. ' 17. Silk and tea are mentioned here to give a rounded picture of the health of handicrafts, but it should be noted that the decline in export demand for these items cannot be regarded as an effect of imperialism; rather, the very existence of export demand was an effect of imperialism. . 18..Chi-ming Hou, Foreign Investment and Economic Development m Chma, 1840-1937 (Cambridge, Mass_: Harvard University Press, 1965). Hou's major findings are confirmed by John E. Schrecker, Imperialism and Chinese Nationalism: Germany in Sbdntung (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971); see, especially. 258. 19. Albert I'euerwerker, The Chinese b'conomy, 1912-1949 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for Chinese Studies, Michigan Papers in Chinese Studies No. I, 1968), 14. 20. Ibid., 17-19. One might, however, argue that a strong government investment program could have compensated for the absence of market demand in the initial stages of industrialization. If it were possible to trace the weakness of the Chinese government's industrial investment program to imperialism, the case for ascribing a major detrimental economic impact to imperialism would be established. But this would require evidence that either the political weakness of the government or the shortage of capital for government investment was due to imperialism. The latter point is treated in note 22. The former, rcstated in Isaacs' terms (i.e., that by strengthening the forces of reaction imperialism postponed the arrival of a truly strong government which could undertake an industrialization program), is discussed later in the essay. 21. Ibid, 70. 1 22. The impact of the foreign drain was probably more serious in some. areas of the country than in others because of the varying I effectiveness of tax collection. But the more serious the impact of the dram of wealth in one locality, the less serious the impact in the rest of the nation. Research may disclose either that the impact was widespread but slight, or that it was heaVy but localized. In either case the impact would not be capable of explaining an overall trend, if ther~ was one, toward poverty or economic weakness. It may be argued, however, that the sums drained from China were precisely the crucial amounts that would have stimulated economic takeoff if they had been invested in industry (cf. note 20). The obvious rejoinder is to ask how likely it is that, in the absence of imperialism, 7