New Shun 1730

As a prince who had received a good traditional Confucian education, many years ago, when Li Xi first followed Liu Yu to Weihai to attend a commendation meeting for craftsmen, he learned one thing: the highbrow and lowbrow, and the craftsmen and sailors, no matter what Confucius said or poetry said, would never match.

As he began his naval career, the harsh environment of the sailing warships of this era, and the sailors were considered as refugee proletarians, and the warships were the breeding grounds of the "scum" of Dashun, Li Xi probably couldn't say anything Confucius said or poetry.

At that time, Li Xi always wore an eye patch on the eye that was damaged by acne when he was a child.

The story of the eyes was a bit special in the process of the founding of Dashun. The oath of breaking arrows in the 16th year of Chongzhen was considered as Dashun's official declaration that it could continue to use those officials of the previous dynasty, and it was also considered as a political gesture to take over the empire.

Therefore, there is no need to hide the injury of the eyes for the respected. Moreover, after all, this Dashun is the Dashun behind Jiugong Mountain.

At that time, Li Li, who was wearing an eye patch, didn't think so much.

Later, in the navy, wearing an eye patch became a common thing. After all, the navy has to look at the sun all day, and experienced people will cover one eye to quickly adapt to the scene change between the dark cabin and the scorching sun deck outside. Wearing an eye patch is not uncommon in the navy.

However, Li Li, who had worn an eye patch for decades, did not wear an eye patch after returning from the Atlantic after winning World War I.

Instead, he used tea-black glasses carved by craftsmen, with tortoise shell frames and black crystals.

To cover the defect of that eye.

To a certain extent, from the perspective of "summoning heroic spirits and wearing the bones of the dead", Li Li's own conditions are indeed quite good.

The eye that was sacrificed when he was a child can allow him to summon Li Zicheng, a small farmer's equal land card.

The bloodline of the old emperor's biological son can allow him to summon the old emperor's foreign expansion officer corps card.

Following Liu Yu to train in his teens, he can actually summon Liu Yu's industrial and commercial card.

Of course, these are just external conditions.

The essence of making XX great again is to use the past, "youth version" policies to solve the current, "aging version" problems.

The essence of the progressive emperor is not enlightened monarchy, but "to develop industry peacefully and rapidly as the emperor of the whole people and the benefactor of all classes, and to accelerate and intensify class contradictions in rapid development."

The essence of Na San is different from those monarchs in the past. It stems from the advent of the industrial age and the use of old thinking to solve new problems under the characteristics of the times. And the characteristics of the times make it necessary to make an enhanced version of Na San, so we have to figure out "industry", "commerce", "free trade", "employed labor", "capital", "consumption", "cyclical turbulence" and other problems that only exist in the new era and can be ignored even if they existed in the past.

As said in "On the Elimination of Poverty": The significance of the new era of reclamation cooperatives is:

First, it can provide a place for the unemployed in the cyclical turbulence of capitalism.

Second, through agricultural cooperatives, the cost of employment is raised, so that private enterprises have to offer higher wages than agricultural cooperatives in order to recruit wage workers.

Let's not talk about whether he is sincere.

Let's not talk about whether this set of things can really work.

Let's not talk about the strong Saint-Simon fantasy contained in this set of things.

Just say that he can add these two meanings to land reclamation.

Then, he is much higher than those people of the old forces, the old times, the old minds, and the old aristocrats.

It can be said roughly.

To achieve the enhanced version of the three, in the three things of discovering problems, analyzing problems, and solving problems, at least one must be proficient, one must be misinterpreted, and one must be bullshit.

At the very least, you must have the ability to "discover problems".

Then, after discovering the problem, you must misinterpret the direction of "analyzing the problem".

Finally, after misinterpreting the direction, you can come up with a bullshit "solution to the problem".

In this regard, the most classic example is not "On the Elimination of Poverty".

It was in the book called "Economic Thoughts on the Problem of Sugar Industry".

The background of this booklet is that during the Napoleonic Wars, the British Navy blockaded France. The sugar from the Caribbean sugar industry, which was originally developed to force Britain to come up with the "Sugar Tax Act", could not come to France.

So, Nayi launched a replacement movement to let France grow beets to make sugar. After all, sugarcane cannot be grown in the climate of France.

After Nayi was exiled, the blockade was lifted, and the Caribbean sugar industry could sell sugar to France again. However, the beet sugar industry in France also developed.

Protect the interests of West Indian capital?

Or protect the interests of French capital?

Given the tradition of France - for example, the root cause of the North American molasses smuggling problem before, that is, France protected its own wine and gave up the interests of West Indian capital and did not allow them to produce rum, resulting in extremely low prices for French molasses, and also led to the start of North American smugglers and northern state industry and commerce - naturally, this is related to the issues of "free trade" and "tariff protection".

And.

At home, after all, the West Indies islands were French and run by French people.

In the country, if there is an industrial conflict - in Dashun, it is Songsu using Indian cotton textiles and Hubei using Jianghan cotton textiles - is it the weak party that preserves the local industrial chain? Or is it the strong party that preserves the colony as the raw material supply chain?

Should we add "tariffs" to "French West Indian sugar to protect the local beet industry?"

In Dashun, it is "Should we add a sub-tariff to Songsu's cotton cloth to protect Hubei's cotton textile industry?"

This is the first thought of Na San's beet lump problem.

The second thought led by beet lump is more interesting.

Another thought led by beets, sugar extraction, planting, farmers, workers, land, machines and other things.

That is: [Large-scale industry and agriculture are different.]

[If a revolution or uprising breaks out, then land resources can still be divided after the revolution, such as the French Reform]

[But the machines in large factories cannot be divided, otherwise everyone will just have a pile of broken copper and iron in their hands. 】

【What should we do if a revolution or uprising breaks out during the factory era, or if we encounter an economic turbulence cycle? 】

【Industrial development is correct, and it is obviously correct】

【But does industrial development have to take the route of large-scale industry? 】

【Can we take the route of dispersed small factories? The manufacturing industry of small factories that are blooming everywhere is not concentrated in big cities, but dispersed in various towns】

【In this way, industry is developed】

【Workers can also more easily switch between workers and farmers. When industry and commerce encounter a crisis cycle, workers can also go to the countryside to take refuge and avoid the turbulent cycle】

Of course, this is the problem of Saint-Simonian fantasy, and it is also the reality of the social existence and economic foundation of France. And... it laid the groundwork for France to fail to complete the monopoly and large-scale coal and iron complex in the future, and even become a usurious imperialism.

But in Dashun, the embarrassing thing is... Nantong's "pseudo-male farming and female weaving" model of family iron wheel loom textile industry development seems to be following the same idea as Na San, at least, it looks quite similar.

Of course, they are essentially different. The difference here is that one is a compromise with reality and a stopgap measure to alert the old forces; the other is to simply regard all of this as the future.

The reason why Na San thought so was still what Lao Ma said: Use the youthful version of the thinking of small farmers and small producers to solve the reality that small producers have already declined. That is, when you are in doubt, divide the land. Then use the idea of ​​dividing the land to think about large factories, and find that there is no solution. You can't dismantle all large factories into parts, right?

Therefore, Lao Ma said that Na San's idea is that once it involves production relations and ownership, the bubble will burst at once, because he dare not touch the ownership problem, nor the production relationship problem-why must the factory be dismantled into parts? Why must the idea of ​​dividing the land be used to think about the problem of large factories?

And the third thought triggered by the French beetroot and the sugarcane in the French colonies...

It should be said that this is the key to being the "Emperor of Progress", "Emperor of the Whole People", "Emperor of Small Farmers, Unemployed, and Poor People".

That is: [The essence of what the believers of free trade advocate is actually to protect consumers at the expense of domestic workers, which is generally beneficial to the rich class and detrimental to the poor class]

[The interests of consumers force manufacturers to become oppressors]

[In order to defeat competitors, they must produce goods at the lowest possible price, they must certainly make thousands of people fall into poverty, they must always reduce wages, and they must employ women and children...]

[Britain has realized the dream of some modern economists, and its industrial products are cheaper than all other countries. But this advantage is only at the expense of the working class]

[The low price of goods depends on the low price of labor, and the low price of labor puts workers in a miserable situation... How can we gain an advantage in free trade without reducing wages and oppressing manufacturing workers?]

[If the believers of free trade dare to implement their harmful theories in France, at least 2 million workers in France will be unemployed...]

[Agriculture and industry are the two major sources of social vitality. Foreign trade is only its result]

[Don’t separate our glory from material, that is, industry and agriculture]

[Don’t build a false system of commercial prosperity on the basis of the destruction of a prosperous national industry. For example, if the sugar beet issue is relaxed for the sake of commercial prosperity and financial prosperity, and the sugar cane from the Caribbean overwhelms the local sugar beets, this is short-sighted]

Since it is a complete set of "scriptures".

Then, it must be connected with the rest of the pamphlets.

This issue goes back to the content in "On the Elimination of Poverty", and it is a perfect connection.

[…The country is composed of producers who cannot sell and hungry people who cannot consume. These producers who cannot sell and hungry people who cannot consume force the government to go to China to find thousands of consumers, as the United Kingdom did, with thousands of French or British who have lost everything]

[If these French or British can buy food and suitable clothing, they will create much greater commercial activities and industrial and commercial development than the most favorable treaty obtained by invading China]

[It is better to increase the wealth of the country than to go to China to find markets]

Of course, it is ironic and self-contradictory for this guy who started the Second Raven to say this.

Of course, Na San is using the youth version of the idea of ​​small farmers and small producers to solve the reality of the impending decline of small farmers and small producers.

However, his idea can achieve results under certain conditions.

From a purely technical perspective, his idea is "to compete with industrial wages with agricultural wages, thereby forcing industry to offer higher wages.

And higher wages will expand the domestic market. The expansion of the domestic market will promote the further prosperity of industry and commerce."

Is this technical perspective feasible?

Under certain conditions, it is feasible.

For example, from Jefferson's permission to buy and sell small plots of land to the Homestead Act of the Westward Movement in North America, from a technical perspective, it can also be considered to be such a route.

But the problem is.

Lao Ma has said this problem, that is, North America's population, arable land, land, etc. are suitable for this "youth version" of thinking. But Lao Ma also said that this youth version of thinking can only last until after the Civil War, and after the Civil War, it must turn.

In France, of course, the per capita arable land area is much larger than that of Dashun.

However, the per capita arable land area of ​​France is only larger than that of Dashun. It is still not comparable to North America, and it is impossible for every French family to have a farm.

With this realistic foundation, how can you take the idea of ​​"agricultural wages compete with industrial wages"?

Even if you divide the land in France, even if small farmers take the initiative to not have children in view of the equal inheritance law to prevent the next generation from falling into the class, the problem is that with the little land in France, how can agriculture force industrial wages?

How many acres of land do you have per capita in France? It is a little more than China, but if you compare it with North America, isn't that playing tricks in front of the Dragon King? Has it reached the limit of small farmers who harvest once a year in rough agriculture under the level of iron ox plowing technology?

Far from it.

So, this is the idea of ​​Na San in "On the Elimination of Poverty".

First, let's assume that France actually has a lot of wasteland, at least 9.19 million hectares of wasteland that can be cultivated at any time, that is, 150 million mu of wasteland.

Then assume that these lands that have not been cultivated for so many years can be developed in two years.

Then assume that each mu of land can create an agricultural output of about 10 francs.

Finally, assume that only 0.5 francs of tax is collected per mu of land, or a contract tax is given to private owners.

Then assume that 2 million unemployed French people are operating these 150 million mu of land.

Finally, from these assumptions, it is concluded that each unemployed person in France can earn an average of 600 francs per year.

Then, the country's annual income increases by 70 million francs, and according to the law that each hectare of land can raise two more livestock, the country can have 18 million more livestock meat and milk every year, which is equivalent to adding 2 million strong consumer markets with an average annual income of 600 francs for French industry and commerce.

This means that if the industrial industry wants to recruit people, it has to offer a higher salary than 600 francs per year, otherwise why don’t people go to farm?

If the industrial industry can only recruit people by offering such a high salary every year, then this is equivalent to solving France’s "internal market" problem at once. In other words, [this is much better than going to China to compete for that little market].

In this way, France will take off, right?

That’s the problem.

You see, Na San talks about industry, commerce, agriculture and industry as the foundation of wealth, and that the development of industry and agriculture cannot be damaged because of commercial interests. He also talks about the material world, labor-capital relations, and wage competition...

The problem is that he admits that the world is material.

But his solution is not realistic or material at all.

All his solutions are based on "assuming that France now has 25 million hectares of agricultural land, and assuming that France now has 9 million hectares of uncultivated agricultural land that has high potential yield per mu once it is cultivated."

In short, all his solutions are based on the fact that France actually has 500 million mu of arable land or pasture.

And, assuming that the agricultural value and animal husbandry value created by each hectare of land is 195 francs.

Of course, he also made a patch - [When France does not have enough land at a low enough price, such a village community will establish branches in Algeria and the United States itself; it can invade the world one day! Because wherever there is a hectare of land to be cleared, where there are poor people to feed, there is its capital, its army of workers, and its endless activities]

Even if France does not have it, then Algeria does not have it? Then America does not have it? So, don't get entangled in numbers. Is it interesting to get entangled in numbers?

The same remarks, put in Dashun, what does it mean?

That is, according to the French ratio, assuming that Dashun still has 8 billion mu of reclaimable land that has not been reclaimed; assuming that each mu of land can create an output value of about 5 taels of silver.

Then, Dashun has a total of more than 300 million people, plus the original more than 10 billion mu of land, a total of 10 billion mu of arable land.

Wouldn't the problem of Dashun's small farmers falling into poverty be solved? Wouldn't the internal market bottleneck of Dashun's industrial and commercial development be solved? Wouldn't the problem of Dashun's hired workers being paid a few kilograms of sorghum rice a day also be solved? If you give me a few kilograms of sorghum rice a day, I will stop being a worker and become an agricultural industrial soldier with an annual income of 200 taels of silver...

Thus, poverty was eliminated, the domestic market expanded, wages rose, and consumption capacity improved...

Is this logic correct?

Basically, in this era of suffering from the development of capitalism and the lack of development of capitalism, it is very correct only from the perspective of technology.

Particularly correct.

The problem is that this is another "correct bullshit".

Where can France find 500 million mu of arable land, and 150 million mu of land that is worth cultivating but has not been cultivated?

Where can Dashun find 10 billion mu of arable land, and the technology of portals and wormholes between the country, which can instantly achieve "per capita grain ownership", "per capita meat ownership", "national average price of grain, meat can be flown from North America to Gansu" without considering logistics costs?

It's just.

Think about it for a moment.

Doesn't this look like the same idea as the radical school of practical learning, "first equalize the land and large-scale immigration, 300 million people and five families have 100 mu of land, and then develop industry and commerce"?