Marx and the Taiping rebellion
with ten million taels of silver leaving China in 1848 alone, harmed the state’s ability to spend. 10 But this is of limited harm, when compared to the starvation in much of inland China, when revolting against the government was, for many peasants, a matter of survival. Simultaneously, problems of over-taxation (often taken in kind), led by opportunistic gentry, only worsened the picture; and they reflected failures of central authority to control their self-interest, which, as earlier illustrated, was partially, but not entirely, as Marx claims, related to foreign intervention. The exploitative rent collector Zhang Daye describes in The World of a Tiny Insect reflects the actions of such gentry effectively. 11 This inflicted further hardship on the Chinese people, alienating them from authority so they would seek another. The Taiping were only the latest in a sequence of uprisings against this state of affairs: the White Lotus and Eight Trigrams uprisings expressly against the Qing had occurred years earlier, breaking out in impoverished areas; and the Taiping benefitted from much wider, national discontent, reflected in their greater scale. Marx argues that British industry had hollowed-out Chinese production bases, and the tax burden it placed on the Chinese state – which simultaneously owed a great foreign debt and was limited in its taxation capacities – further inflicted hardship upon the Chinese people. How significant the hollowing-out of Chinese production bases was is doubtful given the limited volume of trade between Britain and a China that remained relatively closed, with foreign settlements in only a few cities. The Opium War debt of 21 million silver dollars, however, was of undeniable importance, and caused a crisis for the state, which was forced to further compromise its spending to pay it. But, overall, the food scarcity which inflicted greatest suffering upon the people of this region cannot be so significantly attributed to the fallout of foreign intervention, so the above illustrated issues undermine his argument. Marx, despite the role of foreign intervention in weakening the Chinese tax system among the other factors he cites which must be conceded to have been a problem for the dynasty, overlooks the underlying causes of revolt, which affected a wider audience more severely. And nor is Marx’s narrow focus on the twin causes of social protest and need for authority justifiable, as shall later be explored. Indeed, there were other pragmatic reasons for joining the Taiping beyond seeking a protective power to fill the governance vacuum. One such was the brutality of both sides to civilians on the other, with the sacking of cities, as the Taiping did upon their initial raid on Hangzhou, which prompted many to hedge their bets on which side would win, often aligning themselves with the Taiping to avoid brutal treatment in defeat. 12 The brutality of the small groups of Taiping soldiers which Zhang Daye describes in his memoir, which included the burning of civilians at the fall of Bao village, was extensive, and many were coerced or otherwise intimidated into joining the Taiping, such as by capture. 13 But the Taiping were not alone in exercising brutality: early persecution of the Taiping by the Qing created a necessarily anti-government stance, initially manifest in the Jintian uprising. And the ease Li Xiucheng enjoyed in recruitment for much of the war is partly explained by the attractive employment prospects offered to young men at risk of poverty. These factors drove peasants en masse into Taiping hands, showing that the pragmatic reasons for joining the rebellion which Marx reduces to mere resentment with economic conditions and seeking safety were much broader.
10 Hsü 2000: 224. 11 Daye 2013: 130. 12 Platt 2012: 124. 13 Daye 2013: 93.
245
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting