New Shun 1730

Judging from the experience of the Manchu and Qing Dynasties in the last construction of the Sichuan-Hankou Railway, it is not impossible to complete infrastructure construction through "forced savings" or "forced industrial investment bonds".

However, you must be clear in your mind that private ownership does not require "enlightenment", either by means similar to the "three rates", or by Emperor Yang of the Sui Dynasty's construction of the Grand Canal, to make it completely owned by the court. The premise is that If you have the ability to suppress the great uprisings of the late Sui Dynasty and the late Ming Dynasty, you can either use forced industrial bonds to force savings, but if it turns out to be like the Manchu Qing Dynasty, where you ran out of money and defaulted on your debt, something big will definitely happen.

Li Han thought about it, saying that he wanted to carry out compulsory redemption was equivalent to forcing landlords to save and invest in industrial bonds, or it could be regarded as forcing industrial capital not to flow back to agriculture.

This idea... I can only say that it still lacks some shortcomings.

Obviously, since Li Han did not dare to equalize land and supported the method of dividing the internal and external areas, his policy could only be carried out in the first-hit areas.

However, a little calculation shows that the ratio of tenant farming to self-cultivation in Shandong is not outrageous.

We only rely on compulsory redemptions in the first areas, and use administrative means to force landlords to engage in forced savings... To put it simply, money is not enough.

But Li Huan absolutely did not have the courage to extend this policy to the whole country. There is no need to think about this, because if you dare to carry out reforms and reforms, it will be Wang Mang's restructuring.

Therefore, Li Han also said before that he should rely on the currency reform that Dashun is about to carry out, and rely on national credit and banks to act as the baton so that capital can be controlled to flow where it should.

But still the same sentence.

Once you have built the road, capital will go to the Songliao watershed to enclose the land to grow soybeans without your command.

The key is to build the road, not the land development after the road is built.

Or, find a way to get money.

For example, learn Liu Yu’s Fuso foam method. To evolve, it is to take the three-step approach and use financial means to quickly move in and out to earn interest differentials and discounts to ensure that the bubble does not explode and that the promised high dividends can be afforded. Use this to invest in infrastructure, etc.

Or, we need to combine the two things of railways and land enclosures.

The land in the Songliao watershed was sold in advance as "return for investment in infrastructure", essentially selling state-owned land at a low price.

In other words, the root problem is that the Dashun court has too few resources, while private capital is abundant.

If the Dashun court had enough resources, then building roads would be a trivial matter and state investment would be the only thing. But obviously, the Dashun court did not have the capital.

Since the resources in the hands of the Dashun court are obviously not enough, they have to consider private capital.

Capital is of course a good thing.

If the Dashun court had enough capital and relied on the government to solve the railway problem, then this would be equivalent to the increased value of the land north of the Songliao watershed, which could be attributed to the court, thereby achieving a positive cycle, with capital continuously accumulating and increasing, and capable people The more things happen.

And if not, then the road needs to be built, which means that the land value increase driven by the railway in the future must be handed over to private investors. In particular, Dashun has gradually formed a group of primitive chaebols and financial capital groups accumulated through shipping, foreign trade, monopolizing trade with Japan, etc.

At the same time, the emerging military aristocrats of Dashun and the officer corps of the Practical School may be bound to these emerging financial capital groups through marriage and other means.

This group has actually begun to take shape now.

Because gold and silver are now the world's currency, and Dashun inherited the Ming Dynasty's silver currency reform, but at the same time it lacked gold and silver. Therefore, in essence, the previous foreign trade group was the note-issuing bank of Dashun. The amount of gold and silver they held was actually far greater than that of the Dashun court. The internal currency of Dashun was theoretically copper coins, but the Ming Dynasty also Regardless of whether it is good or bad, they have not implemented "forced foreign exchange settlement" before, that is, the forced exchange of silver from foreign trade into internal copper coins or treasure banknotes. Liu Yu's trial of exchange coupons in the first-development areas only set up certain obstacles for capital to flow to the mainland to annex land and hoard goods.

Li Han may not know what he is doing, what he wants to do, and the political and economic significance of what he is doing.

In other words, he did not consciously promote the development of capitalism.

However, capitalism is not something that can be easily understood. It’s not that building two textile factories or rolling out two railways would be called capitalism.

To understand it, or not to go in the wrong direction, we must understand the situation in Dashun, the situation in this land, and what capitalism is.

Lao Ma said: [Economics, in principle, confuses two types of private ownership. One of those two types of private property takes the producer's own labor as his own. The other is based on the extraction of other people’s labor]

[The latter is not only directly opposed to the former, but also completely develops on the grave of the former].

This sentence is the key to solving the Dashun problem.

This is the key to avoiding the situation of trying to find a sword and imitating others.

Simply put, both of them are private ownership.

When private ownership is the highest principle, the latter type of private owner can "legally" murder the former under private ownership.

In the end, the former was completely killed and developed on its corpse. And the whole process is completely legal, because private ownership is the law.

So, what is the significance of the European Enlightenment and bourgeois revolution?

Answer: Creating private property is the highest principle. That is, creating conditions for the latter private property to "legally" murder the former private property.

This process was carried out in two completely different forms in Britain and France, especially on land.

In Britain.

The enclosure movement determined private property and clarified ownership. The original unclear village common land, common land, feudal rights of farmers, perpetual tenancy rights, customary rent, traditional rent, etc., are all shit in the face of private property.

It is no longer so complicated, and it is no longer unclear who it belongs to, whether I have the right to graze sheep on this land, etc.

Under private property, mine is mine, and yours is yours. After enclosure, the enclosurer has full disposal rights over the land. I can rent it to whoever I want, and I can collect as much rent as I want as long as people give it. If you can't graze sheep here and can't survive, what does it have to do with me?

That is to say, the enclosure movement in Britain not only sanctified the ownership of private property, but also completed the legal murder of the former by the latter private property by violent means.

In France.

The Enlightenment is developing.

The storm of 1993 completely solved the problem of private ownership of land, making private ownership the highest and most sacred social norm.

In terms of legal rights, the legal conditions and ideological conditions have been created for the latter private ownership to "legally" murder the former private ownership.

But...

But, obviously, they forgot one thing.

You want to kill me, but I don't want to die, what should I do?

This laid the foundation for France to become an "old revolutionary base" after the 18th century.

The storm of 1993 gave birth to the "sacred" private property, but also made the French small peasant class, that is, the power of the first private property, expand rapidly.

Small peasants are opposed to both feudalism and capital. They try their best to maintain private ownership, but they also hope that private ownership will remain the first private ownership.

Before the storm of 1993.

Arthur Young, the later director of the British Agricultural Bureau, once conducted social surveys in France.

He asked the French peasants: [If I were a lord, what would you do? ]

The French peasants naturally replied: [Of course I would hang you, you deserve it. ]

This is hatred for the lords.

And what about the bourgeoisie?

[In the peasant associations that gradually emerged in the countryside, it is not difficult to find the peasants' hatred for the urban bourgeoisie. The peasants would hold separate meetings and draft petitions separately... They often put forward large tracts of land occupied by the bourgeoisie under the new ownership system in their petitions.]

For example, private ownership is fine.

However, the public land in the village should belong to us peasants, so why was it sold to the bourgeoisie? Who did they buy it from? What right did the seller have to sell it?

However, in the storm of the French Revolution, the bourgeoisie had to first determine the sanctity of private ownership, and then slowly solve the situation where the latter private ownership legally murdered the former.

So they summoned Gracchus, Brutus, and even Caesar himself, and took the peasants to do it. The sacred principle of private ownership was determined and the feudal mess was smashed.

Then, naturally, the situation of French peasants described by Lao Ma in "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Bonaparte" appeared: the oppression of the feudal aristocracy was gone, but the bourgeoisie was riding on their heads again. Mortgage, lending, and mergers caused the French peasants to fall into universal poverty.

So, Lao Ma asserted: In a peasant country, the old bourgeois revolution would not work in places where peasant ownership had been established, because the peasants had already got what they wanted. And the first kind of private ownership that the peasants wanted to protect would inevitably perish. Therefore, in repeated struggles, the peasants would completely break the superstition of old things such as the emperor, Napoleon, etc., and would eventually unite with the proletarian workers in the city to overthrow the old world.

So, what do these things mean in Dashun?

Does Dashun need a long enlightenment movement to tell the peasants what private ownership is?

Things that are taken for granted do not need to be constantly explained and debated; abnormal things need to be explained and debated.

In Dashun, do we need to enlighten the peasants: Under private ownership, your land is yours, my land is mine, and you cannot come to my land to pick up ears of grain, because I have full disposal rights over my land.

The peasants in Dashun will not exclaim: Wow, it makes sense, so that's how it is? Thank you for your enlightenment and education.

The peasants in Dashun will only roll their eyes and curse: Are you mentally ill? Do I need you to tell me? Not to mention the wheat ears on the ground, the shit that my dog ​​poops is all mine, and it is not okay for others to pick it up and use it as fertilizer.

Therefore, in Dashun, if you want to take the capitalist road, the key point of the problem is not the enlightenment movement at all, or it must not be the enlightenment movement of the ugly imitation.

The key point is how the second type of private ownership can technically, efficiently, and skillfully complete the murder of the first type of private ownership.

What is legal murder under private ownership?

Let's take a simple example.

Land annexation.

I am a landlord, I lend money to small farmers, using their land as collateral, and then I take back the land when the farmers can’t pay back the money.

The whole process is completely legal under the supreme sanctity of private ownership.

As for cheating, deceiving, beating, and intimidation, these have nothing to do with the “sanctity of private ownership.” The sanctity of private ownership is reflected in the fact that even if you cheat, deceive, and lend money, you still have to get the land deed in the end.

This is the second type of private ownership, the "legal" murder of the first type of private ownership under the highest legal authority of private ownership.

However, from the perspective of all dynasties, this "legal" murder is bound to fail.

When the landlord takes out the land deed, the sale documents, and the fingerprints of the debtor, saying that these are in line with the sacred private ownership.

Li Zicheng, Zhang Xianzhong, Gao Yingxiang, Wang Lanping and other heroes will pat their knives and ask: Is private ownership sacred? Or is my knife sacred?

So, at this moment, the two types of private ownership that the economists mentioned by Lao Ma are immediately clearly distinguished.

Small farmers are not economists.

So small farmers know very well that they want private ownership, but they want the first type of private ownership.

And it is very clear that in their eyes, it is the first type of private ownership that is sacred, not private ownership itself.

In other words, small farmers know better than economists that there are two completely different types of private ownership that are often confused.

Many so-called economists say that "private ownership" is actually "I have ownership".

The essence of private ownership is not "I have it".

It is "disposal".

In other words, the essence of private ownership is that I can sell my things and let others own them.

Only under private ownership can the second type of private ownership "legally" murder the first type of private ownership and establish it on its corpse.

The law is the ruling tool of the ruling class and needs violence to maintain it. The supporters of the second type of private ownership do not have enough power, nor can they have enough power to maintain the second type of private ownership.

Therefore, if you want to take the path of capitalism, you need skills and techniques.

Murder is a technical job.

And in the land annexation cycle, this kind of murder has no skills.

It gives people the feeling that it is purely a little kid who has not grown up yet, holding a knife to stab a strong man to death. As a result, the strong man always takes back the knife, and then stabs him with a knife and kills him.

Therefore, this may require taking a step back and taking two steps; it may also require taking two steps back and taking one step; it may even require detours.

In short, strengthen the forces supporting the second type of private ownership, or quietly raise the forces of the second type of private ownership under the posture of "protecting" small farmers.

If a child kills an adult, he will be killed in return.

And what if the child grows up and the adult grows old, and then kills again?

The old emperor was an unconscious promoter of history, and Li Xi should be almost the same. Obviously, they did not have a systematic knowledge in their minds, and it is impossible to say that Li Xi and the old emperor were doing things based on the second type of private ownership, that is, the class interests of the bourgeoisie.

However, their actions also showed an insight into the economic foundation of Dashun.

Therefore, they were afraid of the bankruptcy of small farmers and the acceleration of mergers.

Even Li Xi proposed to force redemption, force the landlords to save the redemption money, and force them to invest in industrial and mining infrastructure to force them to transform.

However, this also means that Li Xi's idea at least touched the real problem of Dashun.

Including the idea of ​​the radical faction of Dashun's practical learning, equalizing land, relocating people, and then developing industry and commerce, which is also the case.

Their idea is to take a step back and take two steps forward. The purpose of relocating people and cultivating land first is to make it easier to kill people in the future, so that resistance is not strong, and to create an internal market to strengthen the power of the industrial bourgeoisie.

Or:

The agricultural revolution in Europe is the cornerstone of the collapse of feudalism, and it also makes the development of capitalism in Europe start from agriculture.

And is it necessary for Dashun to start the development of capitalism from agriculture?

Is the significance of the European agricultural revolution in the 17th century to Europe meaningful to Dashun?

In terms of primitive accumulation, Dashun has world-class handicrafts, as well as "specialties" such as silk, tea, rhubarb, porcelain, brass, lacquerware, etc.

In terms of per-acre yield increase, the European agricultural revolution in the 17th century was far inferior to the two-year three-harvest in North China in the 18th century.

In terms of labor, Dashun really has no shortage.

So, why do we have to look for swords on the boat and imitate others?

Why don't we see through the appearance, pursue the essence, understand the contradiction between the first and second private ownership, and understand that even if Dashun wants to go capitalist, it must not start with agriculture. Instead, it is necessary to develop the industry while protecting the interests of small farmers as much as possible.

Liu Yu's crazy external expansion and support for the old emperor to increase internal tariffs are based on this idea.

Li Xi's attempt to build roads, redeem transformation, and migrate farmers to solve the contradiction between people and land in the Central Plains is still based on this idea.

The practical school's equal distribution of land, taxation, immigration, and then the development of industry and commerce, first expanding the internal market through reclamation, and then developing industries, is still based on this idea.

In the final analysis, in one sentence:

How to limit the development of capitalism in agriculture and how to protect the development of capitalism in industry are the fundamental issues that Dashun needs to transform.

The invisible hand plays a counter-effect in Dashun.

In this era that can be called "late feudalism and pre-commercial capitalism", private ownership has been determined, and Europe and Dashun are actually in this transition period.

It's just that the manifestation of this transition period is different.

In the Netherlands, this transition period of commercial capitalism is reflected in finance, lending, shipping, commerce, and speculation.

In the UK, it is reflected in finance, shipping, commercial transactions, and triangular trade under the Navigation Act.

In Dashun, it was reflected in the flow of capital to farmland, which was regarded as a high-return, low-risk financial investment - the risk was almost zero. Many scholars and officials in the mid-Qing Dynasty talked about this issue. Given the reality, only a fool would not invest in land.

The fate of the Netherlands is that the financial industry destroyed the Dutch industry.

The fate of the United Kingdom is that Adam Smith criticized that "Britain pursues a philosophy of production rather than a philosophy of consumption". Manchester's textile industry has developed through strong state control, protectionism, government subsidies, colonial plunder, and elimination of competition.

The fate of Dashun is still unknown. Liu Yu only completed half of the journey, smashing British protectionism, seizing the position of "industrial product producer" in the triangular trade, confining India, expanding North America, and detonating the gold and silver mines in North America and Australia when Dashun's industry was developing rapidly and there was a high possibility of currency shortage.

As for how to skillfully complete the "legal murder" of the first type of private ownership, it depends on the means of later generations.