From Ming Collapse to Qing Recovery

The turbulent Ming-Qing transition period (mid-17th century) witnessed devastating wars that severely damaged China’s productive forces, nearly extinguishing the early capitalist sprouts visible during late Ming. However, under the Kangxi to Qianlong reigns (1662-1795), as social production gradually recovered alongside rapid commercial development, new capitalist tendencies re-emerged in agriculture and handicrafts. This revival manifested through several transformative socioeconomic developments that subtly challenged traditional feudal structures.

The Weakening of Personal Dependence

A fundamental shift occurred in labor relations during early Qing. Compared with Ming, peasants experienced significantly reduced personal dependence on landlords—a change stemming from both persistent peasant resistance and commercial economy influences on rent systems.

In advanced Jiangnan regions, fixed-rent systems replaced sharecropping, with some areas transitioning toward monetary rents. As contemporary records note: “Southern tenants live in their own houses, provide their own tools—they merely borrow the landlord’s land. Beyond paying rent, neither party interferes with the other.” This granted cultivators unprecedented autonomy in crop selection and farming methods.

Hired labor relationships expanded remarkably. The 1786 Qing Legal Code formally recognized equality between employers and agricultural workers who “dined together without master-servant distinctions.” Similarly, the abolition of artisan registries in 1645 liberated craftsmen from hereditary service obligations, allowing greater occupational mobility. These loosening feudal bonds created essential preconditions for capitalist relations.

The Expansion of Wage-Based Production

### Handicraft Workshops

Textile centers like Suzhou and Nanjing saw extensive wage labor systems. Silk workshops employed hundreds of workers paid by output—a proto-industrial workforce gathering daily at hiring bridges. As one account describes: “Hired weavers cluster by the hundreds, dispersing only after breakfast.” Parallel systems emerged in cotton spinning, where rural women earned daily wages by processing materials for urban workshops.

### Mining and Metallurgy

Large-scale mining operations employed staggering workforces:
– Sichuan mines attracted over 10,000 transient laborers
– Guangdong coal mines hired “no fewer than tens of thousands”
– Yunnan copper mines sustained 70,000-80,000 workers per site
– Shaanxi iron smelters organized hundreds per furnace, with countless auxiliary workers

### Salt and Sugar Production

Sichuan’s salt industry employed “hundreds of thousands” across major sites, while Guangdong sugar merchants advanced capital to cane growers, establishing early contract farming systems.

Commercial Capital Penetrates Production

Merchant capitalists increasingly dominated rural production through innovative systems:

1. Advance-Purchase Financing
Tea and sugar merchants provided pre-harvest loans, binding producers through debt. Fujian sugar dealers “arrived with heavy capital during harvest season, having pre-financed local mills.”

2. Raw Material Barter
In Jiangnan’s cotton industry, merchants supplied raw cotton in exchange for finished cloth. Shanghai grandmothers “carried yarn to market each morning, traded for cotton, and repeated the cycle—producing one bolt daily.”

3. Putting-Out Systems
Silk merchants distributed materials to household workshops, paying piece rates. Nanjing silk brokers purchased cocoons from peasant families during seasonal markets, while Suzhou “account houses” organized decentralized weaving networks.

4. Integrated Processing
Some merchants established centralized facilities, like Fujian tobacco factories or Henan breweries operated by Shanxi merchants during harvest seasons.

The Rise of Managerial Landlords

Commercialized agriculture spawned a new landlord class employing wage labor for market production. Distinct from traditional rent-collecting gentry, these entrepreneurial figures:
– Operated large estates with hired hands
– Diversified into processing industries (oil pressing, wine brewing)
– Prioritized cash crops over subsistence farming
– Exploited labor through wage relations rather than feudal rents

Hainan’s betel nut plantations exemplified this trend, with the Ke brothers managing vertically integrated operations from cultivation to distribution.

Structural Constraints on Growth

Despite these developments, feudal forces powerfully constrained capitalist expansion:

### Policy Barriers
The Qing upheld traditional “agriculture-first” policies, with Emperor Yongzheng declaring: “Among the four occupations, farming ranks highest. Crafts and trade are secondary.” Handicrafts remained legally restricted to supplementary household production.

### Economic Traps
Most commercial capital flowed into land purchases rather than industrial investment. Wealthy Huizhou merchants typified this pattern, using profits to acquire estates and practice usury.

### Guild Restrictions
Craft guilds enforced production limits to suppress competition. Changsha knife-makers mandated “one apprentice per three years,” while Suzhou paper workshops prohibited new apprentices for six-year periods.

New Social Dynamics

Evolving economic relations reshaped class structures:

### Labor Protests
Wage workers organized strikes across industries. The 1700 Suzhou dyers’ revolt saw thousands paralyze production, with workers “gathering daily to attack workshops until operations ceased.”

### “Base People” Emancipation
Historically stigmatized groups—including Zhejiang’s “degenerate people” and Guangdong’s boat-dwelling Tanka—gained legal equality through Yongzheng’s 1723-1729 reforms. Though motivated by political calculations, these measures reflected broader social changes.

A Constrained Transformation

Early Qing capitalism developed within strict feudal parameters. While wage relations, commercial agriculture, and merchant capital signaled profound changes, the empire’s fundamental economic structure remained intact. Landlord power, policy constraints, and guild restrictions ensured these capitalist sprouts grew only haltingly—yet they planted seeds that would eventually transform China’s economic landscape. The tensions between these emerging forces and entrenched feudal institutions defined Qing socioeconomic development, creating contradictions that would intensify in the 19th century.