The West vs. the Rest. When and why?

[Maq]

Recently, I've participated in several improvized discussions on the question when the West became superior, even dominating the Rest, and why. To describe these discussions as lively would be an understatement.

Those discussions took part mostly in EU4 subforums, so they were naturally focused on the period from 1444 to 1821. But to grasp and describe this topic requires focus on broader period of time. I suggest the millenium between years 914 and 1914.

I have observed that many people tend to believe that before the outbreak of Industial revolution - roughly the second half of 18th century - there were none or only few significant differences between the West and the Rest. China, in particular, is widely perceived as competent competitor until falling into chaos in mid-19th century, partly due to Western pressure.

Me, I believe the roots of Western superiority go far deeper, further to the past, down to Middle Ages, and from then on the divergence gradually increased. The Industrial revolution was indeed a milestone, yet it does not form neither beginning nor end of this development.

So, here I am, and I invite anyone interested to take part in this discussion.

 

[Warial]

Superiority? I will grant that with the fall of Song China fell into decline from which it failed to recover. However, you have to remember that before this time the West was generally inferior in technological progress and advancement of political institutions among others. Only in 16th century, with the benefits of the Columbian Echange, rise of absolutism and technological progress, was Europe able to rival China.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Yeah superior is a bad choice of words.

Also how is China a competitor ? China didnt compete with European countries in the 16th century at all. France and England competed for example or China with the Manchu.

 

[Maq]

Also how is China a competitor ?

Correct. I meant competitor in a (then-)artificial race for being the most advanced part of the world.
(English is not my first language, hence the limits, and often using other than the most appropriate words. Feel free to correct my statements in this respect, anytime, anybody. Thanks.)

 

[Jos de trol]

The roots of western success were already seeded hundreds of years BC. Europeans had a lot of incentive to venture out due to relative resource scarcity (except conveniently iron and assorted metals lololol) and geographically was in a superb position to do so. Furthermore it also had the fortune of very early acquaintance with the pursuit of actual knowledge (as opposed to religious or abstract philosophical mumbo jumbo, which is where China went completely on the wrong track) through empiricism already as soon ancient Greece, which while they were muddied over to a large extent for many centuries meant there was a conceptual framework available waiting to kickstart the renaissance and enlightenment era.

 

[Båtsman]

This is a reply to what Maq wrote in another thread, but I thought it would be better if I responded here.

1. Feudalism. Contrary to common belief feudalism is not common to all societies at certain stage of development. It appeared only in Europe, and Japan (and that's the reason why Japan was more succesful in westernization than other nations).
2. Western Christianity - both in terms of theology and organization of the church.

...I just want to underline that the difference does not begin with rich vs. poor, but with dynamic vs. static. In other words, those two primary occurences are significant because they were the original sources of Western dynamism...

So I was baffled by that someone would list feudalism as one of the good points of the middle ages, since the west has universally settled on centralized nation states as the ideal. Our modern welfare state is just an evolution of the same renaissance nation state which was created during the fifteenth century.

My own country, Sweden, never adopted feudalism, and we did alright for ourselves. The land was cultivated by freeholders and tenants, not serfs. Yes, there was an in-kind taxation and a very rudimentary economy (we had two true cites), but that is hardly what makes a country feudal. This is where Sweden's prominence comes from, a large, albeit rural, middle class - the antithesis to feudalism. Feudalism is an anchor which inevitably leads to warlord-ism.

 

[Warial]

And I would like to know what features of feudalism were so influential on further development of the West. Afterall China experienced its own period akin to feudalism long before Europe or Japan.

 

[Maq]

All right, then. Feudalism. I'll try.
Feudalism is a system where manorial land is provided by the ruler to individuals for an oath of loyalty and military assistnace in return. This scheme created a group of landholders, with following features:
- They were personally involved in agriculture. They held their estates, inherited them, and prosperity of the estate was their long-term goal. This has resulted - together with relative lack of labourers - in responsible management and willingly implemented innovations. (In contrast to zamindars or Muslim landlords who only collected rents, but were not peronally involved in agriculture. They farmed rents/taxes, so to speak, not the land itself.)
- They were naturally engaged in long-term struggle to strenghten proprietary rights. Naturally, they cared primarilly for their own fiefs, but their strength and effort organically developed into strenghtening and legal protection of proprietary rights per se. In effect, this achievement brought benefits even to other segments of society, namely burghers. Burghers did not exercise the same level of prestige (in the beginning, at least), but could rely on legal means of protection of property, and developed collective rights - guilds, and then city rights, city self-administration.
- They were armed. They were expected to be, as their oath of loyalty to their suzerains required military assistance when needed. So they had the right and duty to carry weapons and to be skilled in combat. That means, they were able to defend their rights, sometimes even against their suzerains. In short, they could and would pursue their interests with swords in their hands.
@Båtsman argued that nothing like feudalism existed in Scandinavia. I think it's not exactly true. The difference between continental Europe and England & Scandinavia was that labourers/serfs were in remarkable shortage. English yeomen seldom possessed a handful of serfs, unlike their French counterparts. But it's a difference in quantity, not quality. They too were half warriors half farmers, and their basic interests and duties were similar. Because they were usually "small", they could not create large domains, and therefore individual landholders could not oppose the king the way some of them did in France and Germany. Yet they opposed the king, indeed, sometimes rebelled against him, collectively!
Here we can observe beginnings of parliamentarism, assemblies of landholders, soon to be joined by representatives of cities. This is something we cannot observe in any other part of the world, and it had decisive impact on composition of European society. Without feudals and feudalism, this would never happen - just like it never happened outside western Europe.

 

[Jorsalfar]

Feudalism, the great disputed topic among medievalists. It is a term I would be very careful about using as it is not only a fair deal of discussion on what it exactly means (Bloch & Ganshof offer the most used definitions), but also if it ever existed at all (Reynolds, Brown etc.).

If we follow either Bloch or Ganshof I would say that Norway and Sweden could not be defined as feudal societies. I would not use it on an area outside Europe either as that really stretches the definitions offered by Bloch and Ganshof.

If we adopt a more loose definition and include medieval Japan, then it becomes fairly hard to not include the Zhou too. The problem with a loose definition is that the term in the end borders on becoming meaningless.

 

[Maq]

Feudalism, the great disputed topic among medievalists. It is a term I would be very careful about using as it is not only a fair deal of discussion on what it exactly means (Bloch & Ganshof offer the most used definitions), but also if it ever existed at all (Reynolds, Brown etc.).

If we follow either Bloch or Ganshof I would say that Norway and Sweden could not be defined as feudal societies. I would not use it on an area outside Europe either as that really stretches the definitions offered by Bloch and Ganshof.

If we adopt a more loose definition and include medieval Japan, then it becomes fairly hard to not include the Zhou too. The problem with a loose definition is that the term in the end borders on becoming meaningless.

I quite agree. The topic is ambiguous, because the real life resists perfect definitions.
Yet we are discussing the reasons why the West ... I think the features I presented are valid themselves, regardless what exactly we can call feudalism and what not.
Maybe I should call it "a society dominated by free farmers carrying weapons".

EDIT: Right now I have learned that the word 'feudalism' is perceived rather differently in English than in my native language. This again contributes to the ambiguity of the term... I remain open to suggestions to replace it with a better one.

 

[nerd]

Accepting a huge range of exceptions and gray areas.....

Imho, the single key was a societal mindset difference.

In the "rest" of the world, that which was not specifically allowed was {generally} considered forbidden.

In the "West", that which was not specifically forbidden was {generally} considered to be allowed.

This had enormous effects on innovation.

 

[Båtsman]

All right, then. Feudalism. I'll try.
Feudalism is a system where manorial land is provided by the ruler to individuals for an oath of loyalty and military assistnace in return.

Okay, we are both using the same definition now. This should make things easier.

This scheme created a group of landholders, with following features:
- They were personally involved in agriculture. They held their estates, inherited them, and prosperity of the estate was their long-term goal. This has resulted - together with relative lack of labourers - in responsible management and willingly implemented innovations. (In contrast to zamindars or Muslim landlords who only collected rents, but were not peronally involved in agriculture. They farmed rents/taxes, so to speak, not the land itself.)

I'll give you semi right on this one here. Yes, rich magnates hold the capital to invest in expanded production capabilities (why do I sound like a marxist drone now?). In Swedish medieval archaeology, traces of the new heavy medieval plough only appears on estates of the rich. But it doesn't require feudalism for wealthy men to appear; humanity will always have them, (even if they sometime takes title likes "party leadership").

- They were naturally engaged in long-term struggle to strenghten proprietary rights. Naturally, they cared primarilly for their own fiefs, but their strength and effort organically developed into strenghtening and legal protection of proprietary rights per se. In effect, this achievement brought benefits even to other segments of society, namely burghers. Burghers did not exercise the same level of prestige (in the beginning, at least), but could rely on legal means of protection of property, and developed collective rights - guilds, and then city rights, city self-administration.

That is funny because the conflict in Swedish history has always been between the yeomen and the magnates, with the royal authority as arbiter. Several high-medieval laws states: "Land skal mæþ laghum byggias", Latin: Civitas legibus aedificetur (approximately, A nation is built upon law). It was always the kings who stopped the transgressions of the magnates, so they could have the support of the general population (according to the sources). The early medieval magnates couldn't get any more rights, they had them all; high medieval Sweden barely was a country.

- They were armed. They were expected to be, as their oath of loyalty to their suzerains required military assistance when needed. So they had the right and duty to carry weapons and to be skilled in combat. That means, they were able to defend their rights, sometimes even against their suzerains. In short, they could and would pursue their interests with swords in their hands.

All Swedes were armed. There was no law, since the magnates held all the offices at the thing (court system). The Swedish monarchy was unable to hinder the lower classes, not from arming themselves, but from bringing weapons to public places like the thing and church. And this was as late as the 17:th century, when Sweden was one of the most centralized states in Europe. Think about that for a moment.

@Båtsman argued that nothing like feudalism existed in Scandinavia. I think it's not exactly true. The difference between continental Europe and England & Scandinavia was that labourers/serfs were in remarkable shortage.

I'd say that it was nobility that was in remarkable shortage. Sweden had very few cities, and almost everyone was rural yeoman or tenant. The nobility was not that large

English yeomen seldom possessed a handful of serfs, unlike their French counterparts. But it's a difference in quantity, not quality. They too were half warriors half farmers, and their basic interests and duties were similar. Because they were usually "small", they could not create large domains, and therefore individual landholders could not oppose the king the way some of them did in France and Germany.

I now have to discuss the Swedish nobility for a bit. They were originally called "stormän" - magnates and were noble because they held great estates. The king never granted them any land. Later, we have alsnö stadga of 1280, which redefines nobility as a "frälse" - those saved (from taxation). All estates who can arm and hold a western medieval knight, magnates or upper yeomen, are exempt from all taxation. Neither here is any land granted to the nobility. Your definition of feudalism is looking shaky.

The big game-changer is the black death, and the heavily centralized and powerful Kalmar union; with its seat at Copenhagen. It is now that we see the widespread popular uprisings, where every single man in a province takes his weapons and goes "man ur huse", - literally everyone out of the the house, to fight the hostile target. But notice that this only happened within the nations border, never for offensive wars. This state of affairs would last for an entire century.

Yet they opposed the king, indeed, sometimes rebelled against him, collectively!
Here we can observe beginnings of parliamentarism, assemblies of landholders, soon to be joined by representatives of cities. This is something we cannot observe in any other part of the world, and it had decisive impact on composition of European society. Without feudals and feudalism, this would never happen - just like it never happened outside western Europe.

The Swedish population wanted low taxes, and fought every monarch which raised them. Every single one of the Swedish monarchs had the same wet dream; having a kingdom like France. Just imagine the power and wealth they would gain by making their subjects into serfs. But they couldn't, and they knew how to play realpolitik, and so did the nobility. We thus see different constellations of nobles leading bands of rebels. For example, Charles VIII was elected king three different times during those very dynamic days.

The Swedish parliament was the carrot, royal authority was the stick, and the renaissance nation state the end goal of the monarchs. The parliament was therefore pretty unique in having all four different estates (clergy, nobility, burgher and yeoman) represented.

But this was born from a situation were a single class didn't hold all the power, the complete opposite of feudalism.

 

[Maq]

^ @Båtsman
Extremely valuable notes, especially for those who have got no particular insight into Swedish history. Thanks. Now I'll take my time to digest them, and then will gladly continue in this discussion.

 

[ywxiao]

Superiority? I will grant that with the fall of Song China fell into decline from which it failed to recover. However, you have to remember that before this time the West was generally inferior in technological progress and advancement of political institutions among others. Only in 16th century, with the benefits of the Columbian Echange, rise of absolutism and technological progress, was Europe able to rival China.

There were fundamental changes in Ming China and the concept of Mandate of Heaven.
Think for a moment, Ming has a far larger economic base than Song, yet the taxes collected were much lower, in some years only 1/10 of what Song collected. Have you ever lived in in a major power nation that only had 1.5-2% taxes? You haven't, because there is none.

You could say with the establishment of Ming, China no longer has a clear goal, there was really nothing worthwhile to be pursued around them. In contrast, Song was in a much more difficult situation, with several hostile nations eyeing its holdings, similar to the situation in Europe.

I've always said the rivalry system and army/navy traditions should be made much much stronger, since that's where Europe's strength was at. It would be nice if Prussia would become Ming like after it conquered all of HRE PLC and France, then fall into decadency because of no rivals and get unexpectedly trashed by superior Muscovy infantry or something. It would make the game much more dynamic and realistic.

 

[Båtsman]

There were fundamental changes in Ming China and the concept of Mandate of Heaven.
Think for a moment, Ming has a far larger economic base than Song, yet the taxes collected were much lower, in some years only 1/10 of what Song collected. Have you ever lived in in a major power nation that only had 1.5-2% taxes? You haven't, because there is none.

You could say with the establishment of Ming, China no longer has a clear goal, there was really nothing worthwhile to be pursued around them. In contrast, Song was in a much more difficult situation, with several hostile nations eyeing its holdings, similar to the situation in Europe.

I've always said the rivalry system and army/navy traditions should be made much much stronger, since that's where Europe's strength was at. It would be nice if Prussia would become Ming like after it conquered all of HRE PLC and France, then fall into decadency because of no rivals and get unexpectedly trashed by superior Muscovy infantry or something. It would make the game much more dynamic and realistic.

That sounds like the Habsburg empire, only much more incompetent.

 

[SDSkinner]

'The West' is a bit misleading- aren't we really concerned about France, the UK, the low countries and Germany? West Europe seems to be the area of interest.

You could say with the establishment of Ming, China no longer has a clear goal, there was really nothing worthwhile to be pursued around them. In contrast, Song was in a much more difficult situation, with several hostile nations eyeing its holdings, similar to the situation in Europe

The Ming actually did have a clear goal- not be conquered by the Mongols. Given the success of the Mongols in conquering their predecessors, this was no idle cause- they spent a significant amount of their time, effort and wealth on securing the Northern border.

Problems with the Ming and Qing
-placed a high value on being a scholar official, moral knowledge and practical governance; sucked up the best and brightest who might have otherwise done more technical and scientific work
-high levels of social stratification and simultaneous focus on informal relationships to get things done; this unfortunately was highly conductive to corruption and factionalism
-Chinese is a great language to have multiple ambiguous meanings so you have a truly massive amount of different interpretations of things like I Ching; pluralism without any recourse to testing different views lead to a proliferation of nonsense and waste
-low levels of literacy; Chinese is much harder to read or write than the Romance or Germanic languages and there was less schooling offered
-weak civil society; everything was subordinated to the state and the state was subordinated to the Emperor. We are talking about a culture where Gods could be promoted or demoted by the civil service in recognition of their actions.
-huge; the population of China is so large diseconomies of scale affect much of government.
-weak; the lowest level of the civil service was in charge of 100,000-250,000 people. This meant they had to rely on local subordinates and local allies, which often included the gentry. Unsurprisingly, dependence on rich landowners limited how much the government was able to tax wealth or improve agriculture.

Even given that, China didn't fall behind in the creation of new technology until the 16th/17th century and even in 1800 the richest section of China was as wealthy (per capita) as England.

 

[nerd]

Even given that, China didn't fall behind in the creation of new technology until the 16th/17th century

I would agree that new technology was developed, but there seems to be a great disconnect in practical application of that tech.

A 19th century farmer was still using 2 000 year old plows, unchanged.

 

[ywxiao]

'The West' is a bit misleading- aren't we really concerned about France, the UK, the low countries and Germany? West Europe seems to be the area of interest.



The Ming actually did have a clear goal- not be conquered by the Mongols. Given the success of the Mongols in conquering their predecessors, this was no idle cause- they spent a significant amount of their time, effort and wealth on securing the Northern border.

Problems with the Ming and Qing
-placed a high value on being a scholar official, moral knowledge and practical governance; sucked up the best and brightest who might have otherwise done more technical and scientific work
-high levels of social stratification and simultaneous focus on informal relationships to get things done; this unfortunately was highly conductive to corruption and factionalism
-Chinese is a great language to have multiple ambiguous meanings so you have a truly massive amount of different interpretations of things like I Ching; pluralism without any recourse to testing different views lead to a proliferation of nonsense and waste
-low levels of literacy; Chinese is much harder to read or write than the Romance or Germanic languages and there was less schooling offered
-weak civil society; everything was subordinated to the state and the state was subordinated to the Emperor. We are talking about a culture where Gods could be promoted or demoted by the civil service in recognition of their actions.
-huge; the population of China is so large diseconomies of scale affect much of government.
-weak; the lowest level of the civil service was in charge of 100,000-250,000 people. This meant they had to rely on local subordinates and local allies, which often included the gentry. Unsurprisingly, dependence on rich landowners limited how much the government was able to tax wealth or improve agriculture.

Even given that, China didn't fall behind in the creation of new technology until the 16th/17th century and even in 1800 the richest section of China was as wealthy (per capita) as England.

I wouldn't say not be conquered by the Mongols is the goal, rather it's not be bothered by the Mongols.
Mongols no longer had any chance to conquer China, they may win battles, they may win the war in some way, but cannot make any realistic gains. In the war against the Oirat, what Ming did was more like a parade rather then a real military action. Ming has developed effective ways to fight the hordes, if there was anyone semi competent leading the army. Please do not bring up Manchu/Qing, I've explained many times almost all the important Manchu/Qing wars were won by former Ming soldiers.

I agree with several of problems you listed, though not all, but I want to bring up a couple you missed that I find to be extremely important.

First of all, during Ming China, Confucius thoughts developed the idea of austerity as a virtue, which was catastrophically detrimental to the strength of the state as a whole and why tax incomes were so low. I trust I don't need to explain why austerity is bad, a simple search on google will turn up more than you ever need. The corruption problem you described is also strongly related to austerity measures, when officials don't get paid enough, they are tempted to make money through other means. The wages of officials went waaaaaaaaaaay down from Song to Ming(like below 20% of Song), and Qing inherited much of Ming policies in this regard.

Secondly, Merchant influences became unchecked by the state, which further undermined the economic situation. Ming pursued a minimal interference policy when it's not related to foreign trade, which allowed Merchants to exploit local population with impunity. The problem then is that Merchant factions has practically no reason to contribute to the well being of the state, and with the rise of their influence created the vicious cycle in the second half of the dynasty that ultimately lead to Ming's downfall.

Thirdly, the Wei-Suo system. Officially, Ming bans slavery, even slaves brought to Macau by Portuguese were considered freed when they landed, and are protect by Ming's laws. However, under the Wei-Suo system the soldiers are just like slaves. This wasn't really a problem at the beginning of Ming when military tradition was high and there was pride in being able to defend the nation. As time went by and there are no serious military threats to Ming, it became obvious to people under the system that they got the short end of the stick. They are very limited in what interests they can pursue, marriage opportunities were decreased, they have obligations and responsibility but get no rewards. Many soldiers abandoned their post, and many defected to the Manchu claimant of the Mandate, where they valued martial prowess.

 

[icedt729]

I have observed that many people tend to believe that before the outbreak of Industial revolution - roughly the second half of 18th century - there were none or only few significant differences between the West and the Rest. China, in particular, is widely perceived as competent competitor until falling into chaos in mid-19th century, partly due to Western pressure.

Me, I believe the roots of Western superiority go far deeper, further to the past, down to Middle Ages, and from then on the divergence gradually increased. The Industrial revolution was indeed a milestone, yet it does not form neither beginning nor end of this development.

I think this comes down to where you're looking for these differences. As I'm arguing in the other thread, I believe Europe was less economically successful than much of Asia until mechanization. But if this is a question of the efficacy of states, it's an open question, and if we narrow it down further to making war or carrying out effective colonial policies then the balance is clearly in Western Europe's favor (see my posts on the Opium War, where I pin Qing's loss on their total failure to make a national or even province-level response to British forces).

In looking at Europe's rise, the biggest questions are which factors exactly played into their success, and which ones had no effect or even a negative one. How far back you date the "beginning" of their rise ultimately comes down to which elements you consider important.

You suggested looking at a period of 914-1914. As I see it, the general trends of this time are:
1- A tough geopolitical environment makes resilient, competitive states. Throughout the medieval period, Europe was marginal in both population and economic output. But high levels of conflict within the Latin West, and between Westerners and outside powers pushed European states toward centralization and the effective mobilization of resources for war. It was this escalation of violence that took Western Europe from feudal levees to scutage to standing mercenary corps to modern, national armies. Crusades and complex wars of succession taught the Latins how to support large armies, for a long time, over great distances, in ways they hadn't been capable of since Roman times. Just as importantly, elements of warrior culture persisted, militaries were fairly high-status and could attract good talent. And the great impetus for exploration also came from a key military threat, the Ottoman Empire- the Dutch, Portuguese, and others went into the Atlantic to evade Ottoman control of the Black Sea, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf routes.

2- The discovery of the Americas allows Europe to buy into world trade. The first and biggest impact is the tremendous increase in the world supply of gold and silver. Where previously Westerners had little with which to buy Eastern goods, they can now buy them with cash. This flow of cash leads to a worldwide economic expansion, and Western merchants and explorers follow it into the lucrative Indian and Pacific Ocean trades. European merchants join in carrying intra-Asian trade to underwrite these cash outflows, and establish international networks of trade posts to support their fleets. Meanwhile, America provided colonial powers with secure markets for their manufactures and nurtured industries from shipping to insurance.

3- Military/political success precedes economic success. The next stage in Europe's rise is the conquest of areas with key resources or industries. Britain conquers Bengal, dismantles the Bengali textile industry, and reassembles it in Britain itself. The Dutch VOC conquers Indonesia to corner the market on pepper. The Portuguese, French, Spanish, Danish and others compete for position in India and in island Southeast Asia. Over time European conquerors are able to spread their rule over much of South and Southeast Asia, through a mix of strategy, diplomacy and business acumen (but not yet through overwhelming technical or material superiority).

4- A virtuous circle of technical innovation. Starting in the late-18th or early-19th century, the pace and impact of mechanization continues to increase as more and more machinists leads to more and more discoveries. It is at this time that Western economies overtake others due to rapid increases in productivity. This ultimately leads to weaponry and military techniques that can only be imitated by countries with a large industrial base, and the gap in warfighting ability becomes massive.

 

[SDSkinner]

I would agree that new technology was developed, but there seems to be a great disconnect in practical application of that tech.

A 19th century farmer was still using 2 000 year old plows, unchanged.

Ancient Chinese technology was really impressive; it shouldn't be a surprise they were using old stuff.

I wouldn't say not be conquered by the Mongols is the goal, rather it's not be bothered by the Mongols.
Mongols no longer had any chance to conquer China, they may win battles, they may win the war in some way, but cannot make any realistic gains. In the war against the Oirat, what Ming did was more like a parade rather then a real military action. Ming has developed effective ways to fight the hordes, if there was anyone semi competent leading the army. Please do not bring up Manchu/Qing, I've explained many times almost all the important Manchu/Qing wars were won by former Ming soldiers.

I was thinking more of 1550 which was an exceptionally pathetic showing on the part of the Ming. "Semicompetant" seems to have been in short supply alarmingly frequent.

First of all, during Ming China, Confucius thoughts developed the idea of austerity as a virtue, which was catastrophically detrimental to the strength of the state as a whole and why tax incomes were so low. I trust I don't need to explain why austerity is bad, a simple search on google will turn up more than you ever need. The corruption problem you described is also strongly related to austerity measures, when officials don't get paid enough, they are tempted to make money through other means. The wages of officials went waaaaaaaaaaay down from Song to Ming(like below 20% of Song), and Qing inherited much of Ming policies in this regard

The Confucian scholars lost in "The Debate on Salt and Iron". The issue wasn't an ideological unwillingness to collect taxes; the problem was taxation was done through tax farming, state monopolies and other wasteful systems. Their problem was similar to ancient regime France; the peasants had little and the nobility were untaxed, but the nobility were the people carrying out government functions so it was politically untenable to tax them- who else had the position and experience to run administration of rural areas?

Secondly, Merchant influences became unchecked by the state, which further undermined the economic situation. Ming pursued a minimal interference policy when it's not related to foreign trade, which allowed Merchants to exploit local population with impunity. The problem then is that Merchant factions has practically no reason to contribute to the well being of the state, and with the rise of their influence created the vicious cycle in the second half of the dynasty that ultimately lead to Ming's downfall.

You are going to have to expand on that. I'm pretty sure, just like in Europe, merchants attempted to enter the nobility/literati by marriage and having their children attempt to pass the examination.

I'm also not sure what you mean by exploitation; isn't this the dynasty where the government set prices and used the ever-normal granary to keep food at a reasonable level?

Thirdly, the Wei-Suo system. Officially, Ming bans slavery, even slaves brought to Macau by Portuguese were considered freed when they landed, and are protect by Ming's laws. However, under the Wei-Suo system the soldiers are just like slaves. This wasn't really a problem at the beginning of Ming when military tradition was high and there was pride in being able to defend the nation. As time went by and there are no serious military threats to Ming, it became obvious to people under the system that they got the short end of the stick. They are very limited in what interests they can pursue, marriage opportunities were decreased, they have obligations and responsibility but get no rewards. Many soldiers abandoned their post, and many defected to the Manchu claimant of the Mandate, where they valued martial prowess.

Thanks. I didn't know about that and it sounds catastrophically stupid. "Good iron is not used to make nails and good men are not used to make soldiers" indeed.