New Shun 1730

After India, it is Nanyang. After Malacca, it is the Java region in a broad sense. This is also the place where Dashun's industrial capitalist colonial view is most obvious.

Compared with the huge chaos caused by Dashun's over-anxiety in India, Nanyang is full of vitality and everything is in a state of development.

Those who carried Liu Yu's coffin from the Atlantic Ocean and felt the awakening of Europe and the chaos in India and quarreled endlessly, after arriving in Nanyang, seemed to be infected by this scene of vitality and everything was in a state of development, and quarreled less.

In fact, the reason why India is in chaos but Nanyang is not in chaos is very simple.

Because India's productivity is more developed, and handicrafts are the only region that can compete with China in the 18th century.

Therefore, what India experienced was that Dashun used extremely radical means to destroy India's civilization achievements and existing productivity. In a sense, it was forced to eliminate handicrafts.

And Nanyang region.

Because the Dutch were so powerful in the early years, they beat the British to India, and slaughtered a group of British and Japanese in Ambon as a warning to others, declaring that they had the final say in Nanyang and no one could do anything about it. They were the ones who protected this area.

The Dutch commercial capitalism was too developed. In the 17th century, farmers and handicraftsmen were looking forward to the emergence of a Caesar to deal with the group of urban oligarchs. When the Anglo-Dutch War was at its most intense, Dutch capital frantically bought British government bonds to help Britain build ships.

Britain could also issue cotton cloth prohibition orders, Pitt's Act, and the 1813 New Monopoly Authorization Act to deal with the British East India Company. The Netherlands really had no way to deal with the Dutch East India Company, so the Dutch East India Company clearly stated: Southeast Asia does not welcome Dutch people who are not company employees, and don't come to my territory to buy and sell goods.

Therefore, the Dutch commercial capitalist colonial view before was really vivid in Nanyang.

The Dutch have been tossed around, scraping the ground three feet.

In itself, the handicraft industry in Nanyang is far behind that in India and China.

Therefore, after Dashun replaced the Netherlands, according to some historical inertia in China, the set of things it did in Nanyang can be regarded as a fairly qualified industrial capitalist colonial view.

Developing production, encouraging production, ruling, and following the model of first controlling and then changing the natives to the officialdom plus the national and wild strongholds played a very positive role in the recovery of productivity in Nanyang.

Because India itself is not only a raw material producer, but also the world's largest cotton cloth exporter in the 18th century. From Ireland to the Cape of Good Hope, from Mozambique to the Red Sea, from Persia to Ambon, Indian cotton cloth can be seen everywhere.

Therefore, Dashun's "transformation of India according to the needs of the domestic industrial bourgeoisie" in India was terrible and violent.

It was to destroy a cotton cloth exporting country into a raw cotton exporting country.

But in Nanyang.

Dashun did indeed improve Nanyang's production capacity - the per mu tax monetization model was a symbol of advanced production relations in Nanyang at this time.

First, it means that farmers have the motivation to produce more. After paying the per mu tax, the rest is theirs.

Second, it means that for capital, the private land model breaks the village model with unclear property rights in the past, and also facilitates capital enclosure, lending, and mergers.

Third, the rapid development of Dashun's industry has made Dashun urgently need various raw materials from Southeast Asia: cotton, indigo, rubber, coffee, tobacco, rice, wood, spices, etc.

Of course, it may sound a bit counterintuitive.

Isn't the per mu tax a tradition of Dashun? Monetization of per mu tax? Dashun used to do the same thing, so how can it be related to the colonial view of industrial capitalism?

This is just like the joke told by Lao Ma: A man fell into a mud pit and was about to die. At this time, he began to hate Newton. He said that it was all because Newton discovered gravity, which made him have the consciousness of gravity in his mind, so he fell into the mud pit because of gravity.

In fact, the principle is the same.

If Newton had not discovered gravity, and written it into a book, it would have been integrated into people's consciousness. Does it mean that gravity no longer exists?

Lao Ma said:

[Generally speaking, there are three possibilities for all conquests]

[The conquering nation imposes its own mode of production on the conquered nation].

Such as what Britain did to India after the Industrial Revolution in history, and what Dashun is doing in Java at this time.

[Or, the conquering nation allows the old mode of production to continue, and is satisfied with collecting tributes.

This is basically a common method used by traditional dynasties, including China and foreign countries.

[Or there is an interaction that produces a new, comprehensive mode of production.

Here, Lao Ma gave an example of the German conquest.

The German barbarians used serfs to cultivate the land as a traditional production, and lived a lonely life in the countryside. They could easily make the Roman provinces submit to these conditions.

Why? Because the concentration of land ownership there has completely overturned the old agricultural relations. The self-cultivating farmers in the Roman Empire basically no longer exist.

On the other hand, if the Roman Empire was full of self-cultivating farmers and soldiers, instead of a large concentration of land, would the Germans want to establish serfdom on the old Roman land? The yeoman peasants can beat the shit out of these serfs.

[Laws can make a means of production, such as land, belong to a certain family. These laws only make economic sense when large land ownership is suitable for social production, as in the UK]

[In France, despite the existence of large land ownership, small-scale agriculture was operated, and therefore large land ownership was destroyed by the revolution]

[But was the state of land division fixed forever, for example, by law?]

[Despite such laws, land ownership was concentrated again. The influence of laws in consolidating distribution relations and the role they thus play in production must be specifically determined]

This statement is also applicable to Dashun.

The actual laws of Dashun can be regarded as protecting small-scale agriculture.

However, even if there are such laws, would the state of land division be fixed forever? Would annexation not occur? Would land ownership be concentrated again?

Similarly.

The re-concentration of land ownership in Dashun can be divided into two types.

One is that the investment attribute of land as a financial hedge is better than the means of production attribute of land itself.

Landlords, gentry and merchants hoard land, rent it for farming, and collect rent.

Because buying land and hoarding it for rent is the highest rate of return and the safest investment - in fact, the security of this investment is much higher than that of the US Treasury bonds of later generations. After all, even if the dynasty changes, the land deeds of the previous dynasty are basically recognized.

Another is that the means of production attribute of land is better than its risk-averse attribute of financial capital.

For example, in some areas with convenient transportation and transportation, merchants and landlords merged land, improved land, followed the market, planted mulberry trees, raised silkworms, soybeans, cotton, etc.

Therefore:

[Production actually has its conditions and prerequisites, and these conditions and prerequisites constitute the elements of production]

[These elements may initially appear as natural things. Through the production process itself, they have changed from natural things to historical things. If they appear as natural prerequisites for production in one period, they are the historical results of production in another period. They are constantly changing within production]

This is very clear in some areas of Dashun and Java ruled by Dashun.

Before the Dashun regime ruled Java, and even before the Dutch regime ruled Java, Java's private ownership of land and the disintegration of villages had already occurred naturally.

Although this natural occurrence was slow, the new mode of production was brewing and germinating in the old Javanese villages.

When the Dashun regime went to Southeast Asia, even if the Dashun regime itself did not know that it was using the colonial view of industrial capitalism to transform Java - just as before Newton was born, people who fell into the quagmire and died did not know that it was due to the effect of gravity - but, in essence, the Dashun regime's rule over Java and its imposition of its own mode of production on Java based on its own historical traditions and inertia was an unconscious and unknown colonial view of industrial capitalism.

The logic of industrial capitalism and commercial capitalism is different.

Industrial capitalism requires more production.

Because production under industrial capitalism is itself distribution under industrial capitalism.

[The structure of distribution is completely determined by the structure of production. Distribution itself is a product of production, not only in terms of objects, but also in terms of form]

[In terms of objects, only the results of production can be distributed. In terms of form, a certain form of participation in production determines a specific form of distribution and a form of participation in distribution]

[For example, wages. The wage labor of wages has the characteristics of labor as a factor of production in one place, and is manifested as a distribution regulation in another place]

[If labor is not stipulated as wage labor, then the way it participates in the distribution of products will not be manifested as wages, such as under the slave system]

Slaves have no wages, and their labor does not manifest as wages, but do slaves not participate in the distribution of production? At the very least, even slaves who rub cotton in plantations have to be allocated watermelons and grains to maintain their labor, don’t they?

Therefore, when Dashun imposed Dashun’s local production methods on Java with a more familiar historical inertia, this itself changed both the production methods and the distribution methods.

Production means that Javanese farmers, after paying rent, produce around the raw materials needed by Dashun’s industry.

Distribution means that after paying the land rent, the Javanese peasants use the currency they exchange to buy the goods under the entire Dashun production system.

Distribution itself is the product of production.

Due to its natural environment, soil fertility, accumulated temperature and precipitation, transportation conditions, and shipping costs, Java is actually easier to integrate into the Dashun industrial capitalist system than the Dashun Gansu peasants.

The industrial capitalist production method also determines that Java's land reform is conducive to the development of Dashun industry. Therefore, it can be called an unconscious product of industrial capitalist colonialism-because in terms of consciousness, the Dashun court may not be aware of what this is, but just imposes the Dashun production method on Java based on tradition and custom.

Here, there is another example of what if that is easier to understand.

What if, for example, the Kingdom of Korea.

As the closest link in the Asian tributary system, if Dashun, or the Red Turban Army in the past, went north, [the conquering nation imposed its own production method on the conquered nation].

Then, would the Kingdom of Korea still have the Wangtian system at this time? The slave system? And land transactions are not recognized?

Since it is said that after the storm of 93, private land ownership in France was established and became one of the most important revolutionary achievements of the French Revolution.

Then, can it be considered that the imposition of the "mu tax system", "small property ownership" and "official system" that Dashun was most familiar with on the areas conquered and colonized by it was an advanced system of the 18th century, promoted in backward areas?

In other words, under the technical level of ox-drawn plowing, curved plow, ridge cultivation, crop rotation, intercropping and interplanting in the 18th century, is the small peasant economy of the 18th century the most suitable model for productivity at this time?

After the French Revolution, from 15 to 50 years, France's grain production soared by 50%, and the agricultural output value increased from 3 billion francs to 5 billion francs.

Of course, after the 1750s, the private ownership of small land, which had played a great positive role in France, hindered the development of French productivity. Especially in agricultural machinery, fertilizers, new agricultural technology, etc.; and because of the small land ownership, French capital is more inclined to engage in "nine out and thirteen back" in rural areas, and small farmers have to accept the exploitation of "nine out and thirteen back" in order to keep their land.

However, it is undeniable that before the emergence of modern machinery, modern agriculture, fertilizer industry, etc., small land ownership was advanced and in line with the level of productivity in the era of blast furnace iron and ox plowing. This advancement has enabled China to occupy about 40% of the world's total industrial and agricultural output value in ancient times.

With the emergence of advanced technology, fertilizers, improved varieties, agricultural machinery, etc., this model has become an obstacle. In history, the problems of France after the French Revolution, if you look at the history of the East, it is easy to understand what Marx said [feudal lords have been replaced by urban usurers; feudal obligations on land have been replaced by mortgages; noble estates have been replaced by bourgeois capital].

What does "Napoleonic ownership, which was originally a condition for the liberation and prosperity of French rural residents in the early 19th century, have become a law that enslaves and impoverishes them in this century" mean?

What does "the interest obtained from mortgage debts from French farmers each year is equal to the total annual interest on all British public debts" mean?

Of course, everything has its pros and cons.

In Dashun, the headache is land mortgage usury, land annexation, financial capital is more willing to buy land as a financial product, etc., which requires various policies to restrict financial capital from running to land and usury.

And in Dashun's colonies.

For example, in some areas of India, Dashun implemented this system of "opening fields, breaking well fields, initially taxing acres, and privately owning small properties", which also caused some unprecedented new problems in India-the Indian small farmers who were forcibly created began to oppose usury, exploitation by merchants, and land annexation, and then began to resist Dashun's rule.

As Lao Ma said: [Small plots of land ownership enslaved by capital (and its development inevitably leads to such enslavement)... The interests of the peasants are no longer coordinated with the interests of the bourgeoisie and capital as during Napoleon's rule, but are irreconcilably opposed to them]

In short, because Dashun unconsciously promoted small plots of land ownership in the areas under its rule in a traditional and familiar way.

On the one hand, under the existing conditions, it promoted the development of productivity.

On the other hand, it also made the European-style bourgeois revolution impossible in all areas ruled by Dashun - the bourgeoisie invited out the corpses of Habakkuk and Gracchus, and the model of pulling the peasants against the feudal aristocracy was no longer possible.

When serfs became small farmers, it meant that they were irreconcilably opposed to the bourgeoisie and capital.

And, as Dashun's rule deepened, its final result would be closer to this outcome.