Marx’s 1853 analysis of the causes of the Taiping rebellion
Oliver Green
The Times described the rebellion in China, in August of 1853, as ‘ the greatest revolution the world has yet seen ’ . 1 This would prove prescient: the civil war which would rage for a decade longer claimed more lives than the first world war by even the most conservative estimates. Two months earlier, Karl Marx remarked that it was ‘ one formidable revolution ’ for the New York Daily Tribune , ascribing its causes to exogenous factors resulting from the First Opium War, and the subsequent Treaty of Nanking, which stoked economic and social hardship and discontent in Southern China. 2 He predicted that its effects would reverberate in a Europe reliant on Chinese markets, precipitating revolution by inflicting economic hardship on the proletariat – just as Europe had in China. This essay seeks to undermine his narrative. For its author, Marx’s focus on external factors i s unwarranted; and he, probably because of his limited knowledge of China, which extended scarcely beyond newspaper reports and a likely visit to Nathan Dunn’s ‘ Ten Thousand Chinese Things ’ exhibition, alongside what Said deems to be his orientalist disposition, adopts a ‘west and the rest’ approach which severely neglects the deeper, underlying causes of social discontent in contemporary China. 3 Furthermore, Marx neglects a number of other factors entirely, severely limiting the validity of his account, which views the rebellion as merely a social protest movement over the condition of China’s poor. For instance, he overlooks the ethnic elements – of both Hakka and Han solidarity – against the Manchu ruling house, as reflected in Hong Rengan’s appeals to prospective Han supporters on ethnic grounds . 4 He further neglects ideological elements of the uprising, both religious and utopian, promising an earthly paradise alongside the metaphysical Taiping Tianguo . And his comment on the class nature of the rebellion – which, as Johnathan Spence notes, was considerable – is surprisingly absent, as Marx abandons much of the Marxist frame of analysis in this article. Finally, he ignores the more subtle but significant causes of rebellion, which include the socioeconomic advantages, particularly safety, the God-worshippers offered their followers, and the coercion of many to join them. There is much to credit in Marx’s analysis; but its limitations are severe, rendering his account of very limited merit. This essay, in critiquing Marx, will seek to illuminate those causes he missed, restoring them to their deserved place. The failure of basic functions of government for the majority of the Qing Empire by the early nineteenth century is evidence of the issues which made scope for other non-state authorities to emerge; or, in Franz Michael’s words: ‘ Since the corrupt officaldom and the equally corrupt military forces no longer provided protection, the people of the villages and towns began to establish their own defence units. ’ 5 The state of lawlessness which emerged in particularly southern China gave rise to secret societies, like 1 The Times , August 30, 1853 (editorial beginning ‘The Chinese revolution is in all respects’) . Available at The Times Archive (see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/about-the-times-archive-5nv97ng9z7p). 2 Marx, Karl. ‘Revolution in China and in Europe’. New York Daily Tribune , June 14, 1853. Available at; Karl Marx in New York Daily Tribune (marxists.org). 3 Thakur 2020. 4 Platt 2012. 5 Michael 1966.
243
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting