New Shun 1730

These new contradictions have prompted the return of many traditional trends in Dashun, such as "emphasis on agriculture and suppression of commerce".

In fact, according to Lao Ma's theory, the four words "emphasis on agriculture and suppression of business" are actually misinterpretations.

Because even Li Kui, who put forward this idea earlier in the pre-Qin period and carried out reforms in the Wei state, his original words were "Engraving with carved inscriptions is harmful to farmers." The Jinxiu Compilation Group also hurts female workers. Harm from farming is the root cause of hunger. The reason why female workers get cold when they get injured is...], the original intention is only to ban luxury goods, and here we focus on female workers, so is the household textile industry considered a handicraft industry?

When productivity and per-acre yields are insufficient, we should first develop the grain industry and textile industry to ensure food and clothing. Generally speaking, it cannot be said to be wrong.

Besides, is commercial capital really that "progressive"?

I'm afraid, not necessarily.

Lao Ma's evaluation of commercial capital can only be said to be not high.

[In modern British history, commercial capital and commercial cities were also politically reactionary. They formed an alliance with the landed aristocracy and the financial aristocracy to oppose industrial capital]

[Purely commercial cities—that is, cities with dominant commercial capital, are easier to maintain their outdated status]

Lao Ma’s conclusion and his evaluation of commercial capital as “reactionary”.

It was when Liu Yu was alive that he believed that he could work with the Dutch East India Company to destroy European industry; in theory there was a possibility of cooperation with the British East India Company, but it had to be fought because of the wool interests of the landed aristocracy; he could cooperate with the smuggling of North America Businessmen worked closely together and after the victory in World War I, they supported British and American commercial capital to completely eliminate the roots of their own industrial buds.

Because although they are called "commercial capital", they are quite different from the capital in "capitalism".

Commercial capital existed during the time of slavery, and commercial capital was still very developed, so can we call capitalism sprouting at that time?

Capitalism precisely requires the independence of commercial capital, making it a part of socialized production rather than an independent commercial capital.

As Lao Ma said: [Commercial capital itself is not enough to explain the transition from one mode of production to another].

The example of Dashun in Mongolia at this time can also illustrate this matter well.

To put it simply, Dashun’s capitalist transformation in Mongolia was a huge failure.

Compared with policies such as land reform in Nanyang, it is simply reactionary. It's just that there are not many people in Dashun who really understand what capitalism is, or maybe none at all. When they see money, capital profits, and trade, they feel that this thing is the future that Xing Guogong said, but in fact it is simply It's the exact opposite.

Same thing, in other words.

The Dutch rule in Nanyang at that time was simply reactionary compared to the land and taxation policies of Dashun, and was further and further away from the progress of capitalism.

Capitalism, or the so-called bud, does not mean that money, capital profits, and trade are developed. It is called the bud of capitalism, which is far from it.

The so-called commercial capitalism is not capitalism.

Because Lao Ma said very clearly: [As commercial capital, capital has independent and priority development, which means that production is not yet subordinate to capital. That is to say, capital at this time is still developing on the basis of a social production form that is incompatible with capital and does not depend on it]

Because there is a very simple logic here.

Since commercial capital is independent and not a component of the element "capital" in capitalist society, it can be deduced that the two poles outside circulation, namely producer A and producer B, are relative to circulation. In other words, it is also independent.

Therefore, because of commerce, the cattle of the herdsmen are no longer cattle in the eyes of the herdsmen, but commodities; the cloth of the weavers is no longer the cloth in the hands of female workers, but commodities - the difference is that in capitalist society Capital, whether it is raising cattle or weaving cloth, is not intended to produce cloth or cattle from the beginning. The purpose is to produce profitable commodities.

Therefore, Lao Ma said, the more independent development of commercial capital, the more it proves that the general economic development of society is incomplete, in inverse proportion. The more commercial capital, or merchants, are treated separately and regarded as a powerful class, the farther away they are from capitalism.

Indeed, Lao Ma said: [Business has more or less disintegrated various existing production organizations that produce use value in different forms]

But obviously, there is another sentence behind it, which cannot be just generalized.

[But to what extent it will disintegrate the old mode of production and where this disintegration will lead, in other words, what new mode of production will replace the old mode of production, does not depend on business].

In other words, economic determinism is nonsense enough.

So commercial determinism is even more ridiculous than economic determinism. In other words, it seems that as long as there is no emphasis on agriculture and neglect of business, capitalism will definitely develop. This is a nonsense.

Because [what new mode of production will replace the old mode of production does not depend on business...such as the package purchase system, in itself, it does not cause the change of the old production, but rather it maintains this kind of production. The mode of production is the prerequisite for its own existence...Similar methods have become obstacles to the true capitalist mode of production everywhere]

[Because it does not change the mode of production, it only worsens the situation of producers].

According to the tradition here in China, the package purchase system may not be very popular.

However, if we change it to tenancy, it can be easily understood - [it does not change the mode of production, it only makes the conditions of producers worse; it does not cause changes in the old production, but rather it maintains this mode of production as the premise of its own existence].

This is the significance of emphasizing agriculture and suppressing commerce, and suppressing mergers.

Because what kind of new mode of production replaces the old mode of production does not depend on business.

On the contrary, sometimes commercial capital will hinder the real capitalist mode of production. Even commercial capital itself is attached to the old mode of production. The new mode of production will destroy commercial capital and completely crush it and throw it into the melting pot of capital.

Many people think that it is business that brings capitalism, so if we don't emphasize agriculture and suppress commerce, capitalism will have developed long ago.

The reality is that business will not bring about the capitalist mode of production, but it is easy to have mergers, land purchases, rent collection, and investment.

This depends on a series of factors such as the land system, productivity level, internal trade system, transportation system, and laws in the old era.

Now, after such a long period of development, Dashun has revived the retro style of "focusing on agriculture and neglecting commerce". Its essence is very simple.

It is nothing more than that the primitive accumulation of the first-developed regions has been basically completed, industrial development has connected the world trade, and commercial capital has plundered everywhere... Who can guarantee that once the control of capital is completely relaxed, these capitals will not become commercial capital all at once? Crazy to occupy land, annex land, collect rent, hoard goods, and plunder the local area?

The previous rebellion in the Mongolian region has given Dashun a great warning. Because the Mongolian region is not within the scope of control, the tragic situation of commercial capital plunder is very clear.

Many people began to question that relying only on the idea of ​​industry and commerce seems to be unable to preserve the whole world.

On the contrary, the traditional idea of ​​changing the land and returning to the flow is more correct.

If we continue to do this in industry and commerce, I am afraid that in a few decades, the Mongolian region will completely rebel. By then, there would be no more threat to the Central Plains, but the border would be corrupted. Dashun could solve the problem of the Northeast because the Little Ice Age was over and the Northeast could be cultivated. The problem was that not all places in the Mongolian region could be solved by copying local production methods. Some places could not cultivate the land at all.

In short, the traditional Tian Khan model could not be maintained under the continued development of industry and commerce, or the rapid development of industry and commerce in the developed regions.

Therefore, the previous dynasty’s policy in the southwest had to be used to prepare for the reform of the natives.

It sounds like tradition has defeated Liu Yu’s theory that industry and commerce are the future of the world.

But in fact, it is not.

As Liu Yu said, few people in Dashun understood what capitalism was. Of course, he did not say it, and he only said "industry and commerce" according to tradition.

So, what is the reform of the natives?

In short, it means abolishing the feudal rights of the original feudal lords, registering the people, counting the household, collecting taxes, measuring land, building cities, setting up schools, and sending officials.

So, what does this mean in terms of political economy?

Obviously, abolish local feudal rights, strengthen the unified domestic market, divide the ownership of feudal nobles' land, and grant feudal serfs and herdsmen the obligations and some rights of human beings.

For example, who owns the pastures of the leaders of the tribes in the Mongolian region? Who owns the cattle and horses? Whose herdsmen are under them?

Obviously, they belong to the Mongolian nobles.

Now, the land reform is to divide the pastures and make the herdsmen no longer subordinate to the Mongolian nobles.

For those suitable for farming, the pasture land will be directly taken away from the Mongolian nobles, and they will be reclaimed, planted, or capital will be used to enclose land for sheep.

For those who are half-agricultural and half-pastoral, a part suitable for farming will be demarcated, cities will be built, and people will be relocated, and the rest will not be allowed to be reclaimed.

For those who can only be nomadic, cities will be built, officials will be transferred, and the big ones will be demolished and the small ones will be disbanded. The feudal rights of the Mongolian nobles will be directly abolished, but the private ownership of land similar to that within Dashun will be retained: here, it is nothing more than exchanging land for cattle and sheep. It is called the tenancy system in China, and the Sulu system there. Since the tenancy system in the interior can be divided into 40% and 60%, the Sulu system is also written into the Dashun Law according to the 40% and 60% ratio, just like the story of the highest annual interest rate of 36%, 40% for herders and 60% for herders.

If the reform of the natives is understood in this way, then it can obviously be called "in the process of commercial capital leading to the disintegration of the old production organization in the Mongolian region, through the guidance of the administrative hand, it leads to capitalist private production relations, rather than letting the plundering system of commercial capital hinder the development of local productivity"

Exactly, this is what Liu Yu really meant when he said "industry and commerce are the future".

He never said that everything would be solved by commercial development. On the contrary, he imposed various restrictions on commerce from the beginning, and trade with Japan was stuck with a lot of military obligations from the beginning.

The two are not contradictory. It's just that few people on the Dashun side understand what capitalism is. Just listening to Liu Yu talking about industry and commerce all day, they thought Liu Yu opposed emphasizing agriculture and suppressing commerce.

On the contrary, Liu Yu's attitude towards emphasizing agriculture and suppressing commerce can only be said to be that he does not think it is the root of all evil... His attitude towards commercial capital is not so friendly, and not so naive. He thinks that the degree of reaction of this thing is not much different from that of the fucking land aristocracy. If it is not properly guided, the land system and the almost non-existent internal commercial control will be completely relaxed. It will be purely [it does not change the mode of production, it just makes the situation of producers worse; it does not cause changes in the old production, but rather it maintains this mode of production as the premise of its own existence]

As for the basis for realization... Dashun can be said to have excellent conditions. Dashun does not need Mongolian cavalry, nor does it need to recruit Kalmyk archers, and even the basis of rule has nothing to do with these people.

In addition, Europe is going to be in chaos again, and Luocha State is obviously unable to cause trouble in the east. It is just the right time.

Of course, the most important thing is to be able to fight. Once the railway is repaired, the last time there was an accident, the troops were dispatched to suppress it, and there was no pressure on logistics. This is why many people have this idea.

As for the issue of commercial interests... I can only say that Dashun’s previous experience can be used again now. The court will return the commercial loans to shareholders. But who said that the money must be repaid? Clean up a few Mongolian nobles, take the land as state-owned land, and give the land. Isn’t it done.

As for raising sheep, horses, and cattle, or cutting it into small pieces and renting it to reclamation farmers to collect rent, this matter cannot be controlled. It can only depend on how Dashun develops, how the market is, and the development of transportation and logistics.

It seems that it sounds simple. In theory, it seems to be completely feasible. On the horizontal axis, it is also progressive.

The problem is...it's not that simple.