New Shun 1730

Actually, there is nothing we can do about it.

The Physiocrats in the Enlightenment, if you want to do free trade, then do free trade. But they just use the banner of "Chinese experience" to make a fuss, which caused a lot of trouble. Of course, this is also the result of the Dashun side fanning the flames. There are always two sides to things. There is no such thing as only good and no bad.

In fact, in history, France had already experienced a food crisis in 67. At that time, it seemed that Choiseul was still in power. He was inclined to the Enlightenment and Physiocratism.

As a result, when there was a famine, the general attitude of the Physiocrats was "don't care" and "do nothing". They wanted to rely on the natural order to recover without any state interference.

So-called:

[In 1768, when France collapsed in near famine, the Physiocrats still called for "no action" and muttered to themselves about their natural order and Quesnay's oriental wisdom]

After the incident, many Enlightenment factions, including those abroad and even the Enlightenment leader Galliani in Italy, quickly cut ties with them.

This is too scary.

For other things, the natural order will spontaneously adjust, but you dare to say that about food, it is really too scary.

For other things, such as cotton cloth, whether there is free trade or not, France still has linen and woolen cloth to wear, and if there is, at most the linen and woolen textiles will lose their jobs. It is not impossible to adjust it in the end.

Food is different. Historically, the food crisis in 1968 and the attitude of the Physiocrats really directly contributed to the revival of Colbertism in France.

The Physiocrats are not the school of farming, nor the later agricultural colleges, breeding majors, agricultural majors... No.

Rather, it means that land is the only source of value, and industry and so on are just processing things in the land and changing their appearance, and do not generate value at all. Therefore, taxes should come from the land, and industry and commerce should not be taxed at all. In the end, it is as close to the "natural order" as possible, and everything is regulated by the invisible hand.

Since land is the only source of value, industrial capital and commercial capital are actually "making wedding clothes for others" and selflessly increasing the wealth and profits of landowners. Therefore, the existence of industrial and commercial capital is to better serve landowners, that is, landlords and aristocrats.

So, why bother with them? Don't bother with them at all, just let them grow spontaneously and disorderly.

Let's put it more clearly.

The Physiocrats introduced the natural order, the natural order introduced the invisible hand, and the invisible hand introduced free trade.

Therefore, in history, during the two food crises in 1968 and 1975, the mainstream attitude of the Physiocrats was "don't care", "don't interfere", "don't take action", and rely on the natural order to regulate itself.

Turgot was actually influenced by the French tradition. In 1976, when he sent more than 25,000 troops to suppress flour chaos, crack down on speculators, allocate grain for regulation, and provide grain transportation subsidies to food-deficient areas, he "betrayed" or "revised" the Physiocratism.

Of course, in fact, the Dashun side was also quite collapsed.

Who the hell told you that the way of governing is to do nothing. What does doing nothing mean? Who told you that the way of nature is to rely on the natural order and wait for the grain price to recover without any interference?

Perhaps, many people in later generations cannot imagine it.

Historically, in the mid-to-late 18th century, before the French Revolution, when France was jumping back and forth between "free trade" and "mercantilism", the "Chinese experience" in the mouths of the French was - completely unrestricted free trade, relying on the natural order, and no industrial and commercial taxes but only land taxes.

And the events of 1967 did make the Physiocrats lose points.

In 1975, when the Turgot Reform directly caused the flour war, hoarding and skyrocketing grain prices in history, it was destined that if there was no legal reform, France would definitely jump back and forth between free trade and mercantilism.

The Physiocrats, with the name of the Chinese experience, pushed the natural order, the invisible hand, and free trade, making the Dashun side quite passive.

Add to that the conspiracy theory of the "famine conspiracy" that is popular in France, coupled with the free trade advocated by Dashun, and the fact that Dashun is a "pagan" with strong anti-Christian tendencies and policies...

If you think about it from another perspective, it is easy to guess what kind of conspiracy theory will be generated, and how strong anti-Dashun sentiment will be aroused throughout Europe.

This is normal.

Originally, the "famine conspiracy" in history is a famous French shit pot. It is the peasants and the lower classes of the old era in the transition period who cannot adapt to the reaction of capitalist morality-the reaction here, like exploitation, does not have any moral color, but only describes social consciousness or production relations.

What is capitalist morality in an ideal state? Paris is short of food, but the price of food in Amsterdam is more expensive. Then I, a French province, will give the food to whoever pays more. Why should I sell it to Paris first because I am French? The local people think that the food is shipped out, which leads to high local food prices, and they go to smash warehouses, carriages, and bakeries. You vilemultitude, despicable mob, do you understand what free trade is? What is private ownership? What is the market?

What is the virtue of free trade in the international market that replaces the moral obligations of the old country?

Now, this big shit pot is so closely tied to the Dashun side that it is really like yellow mud falling off the crotch of pants. You can't tell whether it is shit or not.

The French Physiocrats, the Italian Lombard Reformers, and the British Free Traders, these economic factions in the Enlightenment, all tend to favor the natural order as a whole.

That is: the natural order as the result of human behavior, not the result of human design.

That is, the idealized capitalist social model.

This model was soon opposed and revised in France, Italy, etc., and aroused great backlash.

Including the Enlightenment flag bearers in Italy who historically supported the natural order, such as Galliani, Bordello and Willi, who historically proposed a concept in this speculation.

It is called [a country cannot benefit without the failure of another country].

Later generations called this statement zero-sum game.

The Italian Natural Order faction soon made revisions to the fundamentalist Physiocratism because Galliani discovered that free trade is good. But the damn world is now connected, and the grain-producing areas on the Italian border prefer to ship grain abroad, which also led to famine in Italy.

Historically, Galliani was the first to amend the theory of the Physiocrats: the state should intervene appropriately, and exports should be prohibited when grain is insufficient. Moreover, the free flow of domestic grain trade should be completed first, and then the export should be considered.

However, it is obvious that this revised "half-baked" theory, according to the degree of belief in Europe, was soon attacked - the natural order is not thorough, it is a completely unnatural order.

The orthodox Physiocrats first started to criticize the Italian Enlightenment. Do you know what natural order is? Do you know what it means that people should not design order, but let order become the result of human behavior?

The Colbert faction in France was naturally overjoyed. After criticizing the Physiocrats in their own country, they immediately fired at the Italian Enlightenment. Jacques Necker, after criticizing Turgot, criticized Galliani again.

This is a bit like the debate during the Salt and Iron Debate: Should the state interfere in the economy? If we intervene, which ones should we intervene, which ones should we not intervene, and which ones should we leave completely alone? Can money be minted by private individuals? Can salt be made by private individuals? Should things like grain be regulated, or should they be regulated spontaneously by natural order?

The political structure of France is different from that of Dashun.

Theoretically, Dashun did not have true free trade. The court controlled grain prices through means such as grain transport and disaster relief; and, at least before Liu Yu's reform, Dashun followed the traditional path and had strict export controls: rice, war horses, saltpeter, etc. were not allowed to be exported.

The problem is that France did not have a bureaucratic group with an imperial examination system, nor a county system, let alone a real court.

This makes it difficult for France to learn from Dashun. At least it cannot be learned now. It may be possible to do it after the French Reform, but it is definitely not possible now.

Either free trade.

Or mercantilism.

There is really no way to achieve a mixed state by itself.

France has a monarch, but no government bureaucracy; it has an inner court, but no outer court; it has officials, but no examination system.

There is something missing in the political structure.

This missing thing is very critical.

This missing thing is that Dashun can, to a certain extent, reach the economic reform of the third step; while under the old system of France, it can only jump between physiocracy and Colbertism, and cannot create a stable intermediate state.

Why?

In fact, this matter is also easy to understand.

The reform of the Physiocrats relies on the monarchy, or the centralization of power in the form of monarchy.

Therefore, if you want to reform successfully, you must strengthen centralization.

The monarchy of France is different from the imperial power of Dashun.

The monarchy of France relies on the old aristocratic system.

And to reform, you must harm the interests of the aristocracy.

This matter, or through a radical revolution, the King of the West is possessed, killing, killing, killing, killing, killing, killing, killing, killing, killing the old nobles and killing the king, creating a centralized power that does not need a monarch, and shaping a France that is a real political concept rather than a geographical concept.

Want to return to the old system? Kill.

Want to set a maximum price? Kill.

Oppose the maximum price? Kill.

No land distribution? Kill.

Land distribution? Kill.

Physiocracy and natural order? Kill.

Colbert state control? Kill.

Royalists? Kill.

Constitutionalists? Kill.

Moderate republic? Kill.

Radical republic? Kill.

Utopian Society? Kill.

In the end, the extreme and radical idealists on both sides were killed, and only the old Grandet was left, and then it was stable.

The original owners of the land were basically killed, except for the small farmers who were allocated some land, most of the land was auctioned. Since it is sold, there must be someone to buy it.

Above is a group of old Grandets; below is a group of confused peasants who can only pin their hopes on Caesar.

Or, like the Dashun, there is the legacy of the ancestors: Shang Yang's reform, the Legalist centralized power in the counties, Huang Chao's slaughter of the aristocratic families, the imperial examination, and the breaking of the cultural monopoly with printing and paper...

Of course, these two things can basically be seen as one thing.

It's just that the Dashun spent thousands of years, rebellions, struggles, reforms, coups, etc. again and again, and finally finished.

In France, in just a few decades, all this was done, and it was destined to be nothing but killing, killing, killing, killing.

The Grandet of Dashun was formed over thousands of years and was tied to private land ownership. I don't care who is the emperor, who protects private ownership, who recognizes land deeds, and who can bring order, I will support him.

So, those who restore the past will die; those who equalize the land will die; those who support the king's land will die; those who support the well-field system will die; those who return the fiefdom will die; those who support the land of the Celestial Empire will die...

In France, everything happened too fast and everything was still unstable. Someone was needed to protect all these new things, the real estate that Grandet and others got from the old nobles, private ownership, and the new order.

Who will protect it? Napoleon. What if Napoleon is gone? Find someone like Napoleon.

What did Napoleon protect? He protected private ownership, that is, the interests of the group of people who got benefits in the French Revolution. They needed to use these things to turn them into "sacred and their own" things.

Otherwise, if the aristocracy is restored, what should we do?

For example, the vineyard of old Grandet was bought at a low price and belonged to the aristocratic property that was confiscated. So what should we do if the aristocracy comes back?

The scriptures should recite the sanctity of private property. What I bought with money is mine. It doesn’t matter whether I bribed or used shady means when I bought it. Because this is a moral issue and does not involve the supreme sacred right of private property.

But chanting scriptures cannot kill the aristocracy.

Although Grandet became rich, he had more money than people.

If there is no one, then he must ask small farmers for help?

On the one hand, chanting scriptures can confirm the sanctity of private property.

On the other hand, chanting scriptures cannot kill people. The weapon of criticism cannot replace the criticism of weapons, so a god of war is needed: kill the aristocrats who come to ask for land; kill foreign interference; kill the church who wants real estate; kill the king’s relatives.

After all, chanting scriptures takes time.

The chanting time is relatively long, and it takes 20 to 30 years before casting the spell, which is easy to be interrupted.

Therefore, when chanting, someone must be outside to block possible interruptions until the chanting is completed. This person must be a thief and a good fighter.

After the divinity of private ownership has been chanted, it will become what Lao Ma said: "The bourgeois system at the beginning of this century once let the state guard the newly generated small pieces of land and praised it as much as possible, but now it has become a vampire to suck its blood and brains and put it into the alchemy furnace of capital."

Therefore, it is also destined that France will have a big event.

Because it has come to this step, and productivity has reached this step.

Dashun has used hundreds and thousands of years of examples to tell Europe and North America: when the yield per mu is about 100 kilograms, blast furnace iron technology, printing technology have been established, and land is profitable, clear, exclusive, tradable, and private ownership of land must be determined.

Whoever opposes will die.

The general trend of the world is mighty. Those who follow it will prosper, and those who go against it will perish.

As for whether you rely on the first type of private ownership to attract people, first establish private ownership, and then use the second type of private ownership to murder the first type of private ownership.

Or are you like the British, who established both private ownership and the second type of private ownership during the enclosure movement, omitting the legal and reasonable process of gradual annexation under private ownership.

That depends on your ability.

The French reform under the old order would definitely be a form of jumping left and right, or radical enough to cause a nationwide famine with completely free grain trade; after the famine, the Physiocrats would definitely go down and be replaced by Colbertism, and then go back the other way.

After all, the Physiocrats are too radical.

In France, it really doesn't work. In Britain, the pain of enclosure was overcome by killing, massacres, religious persecution, enriching North America, external expansion, trade, mercantilism, and protectionism.

The French Physiocrats were so radical that even Marx lamented that they were simply the most radical capitalism at the time in feudal France.

If you do this, let alone the nobles, first ask the poor, small farmers, the huge non-self-cultivating farmers, tenants, urban sans-culottes, people who can't afford bread, and handicraftsmen everywhere, whether they agree or not.

Dashun can recognize the system of physiocracy, but the problem is that Dashun has the previous dynasties and rebels, who have solved many problems, so that it has reached a "basically perfect, in line with the per-acre yield of 100 catties and the level of blast furnace iron productivity, under the small land ownership" steady-state structure.

Moreover, there is really no so-called "international grain market" on the Dashun side.

French grain can be sold to Amsterdam and Berlin, which are all abroad; where does Dashun sell its grain abroad? Sell it to Siam, where the grain price is much lower than Dashun? Or sell it to Korea, which relies on selling grain to maintain its survival under the grain system? Or sell it to Annan with the Red River Delta?

Therefore, to some extent, the "physiocrats" of Dashun are more like the "physiocrats" of the Italian Enlightenment, which is "free trade" based on the domestic market.

Moreover, due to the factors of transportation and the commercial law of "no grain trade for thousands of miles" under inland conditions, Dashun actually maintained "regional markets" in a state of "control without control" - that is, after the development of Songsu, the reason why the prince made a "rice ban" in the economic crop reform in Hubei was that he did not take into account the regional market of grain and the "fake" domestic complete free trade problem caused by Dashun's logistics conditions.