“Sinophiles and sinophobes : Western view of China : an anthology” (Publication, 2000)
Year
2000
Text
Sinophiles and sinophobes : Western view of China : an anthology. Selected and ed. by Colin Mackerras. (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2000). (Mac30)
Type
Publication
Contributors (1)
Mackerras, Colin
(Sydney 1939-) : Professor Department of International Business and Asian Studies, Griffith University, Queensland, Australien
Subjects
History : China - Occident : General
/
Sinology and Asian Studies : Australia
/
Sinology and Asian Studies : General
Chronology Entries (1)
| # | Year | Text | Linked Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1776 |
Smith, Adam. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations [ID D22679]. Quellen : Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat de. De l'esprit des loix [ID D1829]. Quesnay, François. Le despotisme de la Chine [ID D1850]. Marco Polo. Poivre, Pierre de. The travels of a philosopher [ID D1854]. Ephémérides du citoyen, ou Chronique de l'esprit national. (Paris : Nicolas Augustin Delalain, 1765-) Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers [ID D20381]. The improvements in agriculture and manufactures seem likewise to have been of very great antiquity in the provinces of Bengal, in the East Indies, and in some of the eastern provinces of China, though the great extent of this antiquity is not authenticated by any histories of whose authority we, in this part of the world, are well assured. In Bengal, the Ganges, and several other great rivers, form a great number of navigable canals, in the same manner as the Nile does in Egypt. In the eastern provinces of China, too, several great rivers form, by their different branches, a multitude of canals, and, by communicating with one another, afford an inland navigation much more extensive than that either of the Nile or the Ganges, or, perhaps, than both of them put together. It is remarkable, that neither the ancient Egyptians, nor the Indians, nor the Chinese, encouraged foreign commerce, but seem all to have derived their great opulence from this inland navigation... Half an ounce of silver at Canton in China may command a greater quantity both of labour and of the necessaries and conveniencies of life, than an ounce at London. A commodity, therefore, which sells for half an ounce of silver at Canton, may there be really dearer, of more real importance to the man who possesses it there, than a commodity which sells for an ounce at London is to the man who possesses it at London. If a London merchant, however, can buy at Canton, for half an ounce of silver, a commodity which he can afterwards sell at London for an ounce, he gains a hundred per cent. by the bargain, just as much as if an ounce of silver was at London exactly of the same value as at Canton. It is of no importance to him that half an ounce of silver at Canton would have given him the command of more labour, and of a greater quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life than an ounce can do at London. An ounce at London will always give him the command of double the quantity of all these, which half an ounce could have done there, and this is precisely what he wants... China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous, countries in the world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation, industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are described by travellers in the present times. It had, perhaps, even long before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire. The accounts of all travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting indolently in their work-houses for the calls of their customers, as in Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of their respective trades, offering their services, and, as it were, begging employment. The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton, many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing-boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty, that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns, several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence... China, however, though it may, perhaps, stand still, does not seem to go backwards. Its towns are nowhere deserted by their inhabitants. The lands which had once been cultivated, are nowhere neglected. The same, or very nearly the same, annual labour, must, therefore, continue to be performed, and the funds destined for maintaining it must not, consequently, be sensibly diminished. The lowest class of labourers, therefore, notwithstanding their scanty subsistence, must some way or another make shift to continue their race so far as to keep up their usual numbers... China seems to have been long stationary, and had, probably, long ago acquired that full complement of riches which is consistent with the nature of its laws and institutions. But this complement may be much inferior to what, with other laws and institutions, the nature of its soil, climate, and situation, might admit of. A country which neglects or despises foreign commerce, and which admits the vessel of foreign nations into one or two of its ports only, cannot transact the same quantity of business which it might do with different laws and institutions. In a country, too, where, though the rich, or the owners of large capitals, enjoy a good deal of security, the poor, or the owners of small capitals, enjoy scarce any, but are liable, under the pretence of justice, to be pillaged and plundered at any time by the inferior mandarins, the quantity of stock employed in all the different branches of business transacted within it, can never be equal to what the nature and extent of that business might admit. In every different branch, the oppression of the poor must establish the monopoly of the rich, who, by engrossing the whole trade to themselves, will be able to make very large profits. Twelve per cent. accordingly, is said to be the common interest of money in China, and the ordinary profits of stock must be sufficient to afford this large interest... China is a much richer country than any part of Europe, and the difference between the price of subsistence in China and in Europe is very great. Rice in China is much cheaper than wheat is any where in Europe... The difference between the money price of labour in China and in Europe, is still greater than that between the money price of subsistence; because the real recompence of labour is higher in Europe than in China, the greater part of Europe being in an improving state, while China seems to be standing still... The East India trade of the Swedes and Danes began in the course of the present century. Even the Muscovites now trade regularly with China, by a sort of caravans which go over land through Siberia and Tartary to Pekin... The consumption of the porcelain of China, of the spiceries of the Moluccas, of the piece goods of Bengal, and of innumerable other articles, has increased very nearly in a like proportion. The tonnage, accordingly, of all the European shipping employed in the East India trade, at any one time during the last century, was not, perhaps, much greater than that of the English East India company before the late reduction of their shipping. But in the East Indies, particularly in China and Indostan, the value of the precious metals, when the Europeans first began to trade to those countries, was much higher than in Europe; and it still continues to be so... The retinue of a grandee in China or Indostan accordingly is, by all accounts, much more numerous and splendid than that of the richest subjects in Europe... But in the East Indies, particularly in China and Indostan, the value of the precious metals, when the Europeans first began to trade to those countries, was much higher than in Europe; and it still continues to be so. In rice countries, which generally yield two, sometimes three crops in the year, each of them more plentiful than any common crop of corn, the abundance of food must be much greater than in any corn country of equal extent. Such countries are accordingly much more populous. In them, too, the rich, having a greater superabundance of food to dispose of beyond what they themselves can consume, have the means of purchasing a much greater quantity of the labour of other people. The retinue of a grandee in China or Indostan accordingly is, by all accounts, much more numerous and splendid than that of the richest subjects in Europe. The same superabundance of food, of which they have the disposal, enables them to give a greater quantity of it for all those singular and rare productions which nature furnishes but in very small quantities; such as the precious metals and the precious stones, the great objects of the competition of the rich. Though the mines, therefore, which supplied the Indian market, had been as abundant as those which supplied the European, such commodities would naturally exchange for a greater quantity of food in India than in Europe. But the mines which supplied the Indian market with the precious metals seem to have been a good deal less abundant, and those which supplied it with the precious stones a good deal more so, than the mines which supplied the European. The precious metals, therefore, would naturally exchange in India for a somewhat greater quantity of the precious stones, and for a much greater quantity of food than in Europe. The money price of diamonds, the greatest of all superfluities, would be somewhat lower, and that of food, the first of all necessaries, a great deal lower in the one country than in the other. But the real price of labour, the real quantity of the necessaries of life which is given to the labourer, it has already been observed, is lower both in China and Indostan, the two great markets of India, than it is through the greater part of Europe. The wages of the labourer will there purchase a smaller quantity of food: and as the money price of food is much lower in India than in Europe, the money price of labour is there lower upon a double account; upon account both of the small quantity of food which it will purchase, and of the low price of that food. But in countries of equal art and industry, the money price of the greater part of manufactures will be in proportion to the money price of labour; and in manufacturing art and industry, China and Indostan, though inferior, seem not to be much inferior to any part of Europe. The money price of the greater part of manufactures, therefore, will naturally be much lower in those great empires than it is anywhere in Europe. Through the greater part of Europe, too, the expense of land-carriage increases very much both the real and nominal price of most manufactures. It costs more labour, and therefore more money, to bring first the materials, and afterwards the complete manufacture to market. In China and Indostan, the extent and variety of inland navigations save the greater part of this labour, and consequently of this money, and thereby reduce still lower both the real and the nominal price of the greater part of their manufactures. Upon all these accounts, the precious metals are a commodity which it always has been, and still continues to be, extremely advantageous to carry from Europe to India. There is scarce any commodity which brings a better price there; or which, in proportion to the quantity of labour and commodities which it costs in Europe, will purchase or command a greater quantity of labour and commodities in India. It is more advantageous, too, to carry silver thither than gold; because in China, and the greater part of the other markets of India, the proportion between fine silver and fine gold is but as ten, or at most as twelve to one; whereas in Europe it is as fourteen or fifteen to one. In China, and the greater part of the other markets of India, ten, or at most twelve ounces of silver, will purchase an ounce of gold; in Europe, it requires from fourteen to fifteen ounces. In the cargoes, therefore, of the greater part of European ships which sail to India, silver has generally been one of the most valuable articles. It is the most valuable article in the Acapulco ships which sail to Manilla. The silver of the new continent seems, in this manner, to be one of the principal commodities by which the commerce between the two extremities of the old one is carried on; and it is by means of it, in a great measure, that those distant parts of the world are connected with one another. In China, a country much richer than any part of Europe, the value of the precious metals is much higher than in any part of Europe... The course of human prosperity, indeed, seems scarce ever to have been of so long continuance as to unable any great country to acquire capital sufficient for all those three purposes; unless, perhaps, we give credit to the wonderful accounts of the wealth and cultivation of China, of those of ancient Egypt, and of the ancient state of Indostan. Even those three countries, the wealthiest, according to all accounts, that ever were in the world, are chiefly renowned for their superiority in agriculture and manufactures. They do not appear to have been eminent for foreign trade. The ancient Egyptians had a superstitious antipathy to the sea; a superstition nearly of the same kind prevails among the Indians; and the Chinese have never excelled in foreign commerce. The greater part of the surplus produce of all those three countries seems to have been always exported by foreigners, who gave in exchange for it something else, for which they found a demand there, frequently gold and silver... But the countries which Columbus discovered, either in this or in any of his subsequent voyages, had no resemblance to those which he had gone in quest of. Instead of the wealth, cultivation, and populousness of China and Indostan, he found, in St. Domingo, and in all the other parts of the new world which he ever visited, nothing but a country quite covered with wood, uncultivated, and inhabited only by some tribes of naked and miserable savages. He was not very willing, however, to believe that they were not the same with some of the countries described by Marco Polo, the first European who had visited, or at least had left behind him any description of China or the East Indies; and a very slight resemblance, such as that which he found between the name of Cibao, a mountain in St. Domingo, and that of Cipange, mentioned by Marco Polo, was frequently sufficient to make him return to this favourite prepossession, though contrary to the clearest evidence... The policy of China favours agriculture more than all other employments. In China, the condition of a labourer is said to be as much superior to that of an artificer, as in most parts of Europe that of an artificer is to that of a labourer. In China, the great ambition of every man is to get possession of a little bit of land, either in property or in lease; and leases are there said to be granted upon very moderate terms, and to be sufficiently secured to the lessees. The Chinese have little respect for foreign trade. Your beggarly commerce! was the language in which the mandarins of Pekin used to talk to Mr. De Lange, the Russian envoy, concerning it {See the Journal of Mr. De Lange, in Bell's Travels, vol. ii. p. 258, 276, 293.}. Except with Japan, the Chinese carry on, themselves, and in their own bottoms, little or no foreign trade; and it is only into one or two ports of their kingdom that they even admit the ships of foreign nations. Foreign trade, therefore, is, in China, every way confined within a much narrower circle than that to which it would naturally extend itself, if more freedom was allowed to it, either in their own ships, or in those of foreign nations. Manufactures, as in a small bulk they frequently contain a great value, and can upon that account be transported at less expense from one country to another than most parts of rude produce, are, in almost all countries, the principal support of foreign trade. In countries, besides, less extensive, and less favourably circumstanced for inferior commerce than China, they generally require the support of foreign trade. Without an extensive foreign market, they could not well flourish, either in countries so moderately extensive as to afford but a narrow home market, or in countries where the communication between one province and another was so difficult, as to render it impossible for the goods of any particular place to enjoy the whole of that home market which the country could afford. The perfection of manufacturing industry, it must be remembered, depends altogether upon the division of labour; and the degree to which the division of labour can be introduced into any manufacture, is necessarily regulated, it has already been shewn, by the extent of the market. But the great extent of the empire of China, the vast multitude of its inhabitants, the variety of climate, and consequently of productions in its different provinces, and the easy communication by means of water-carriage between the greater part of them, render the home market of that country of so great extent, as to be alone sufficient to support very great manufactures, and to admit of very considerable subdivisions of labour. The home market of China is, perhaps, in extent, not much inferior to the market of all the different countries of Europe put together. A more extensive foreign trade, however, which to this great home market added the foreign market of all the rest of the world, especially if any considerable part of this trade was carried on in Chinese ships, could scarce fail to increase very much the manufactures of China, and to improve very much the productive powers of its manufacturing industry. By a more extensive navigation, the Chinese would naturally learn the art of using and constructing, themselves, all the different machines made use of in other countries, as well as the other improvements of art and industry which are practised in all the different parts of the world. Upon their present plan, they have little opportunity of improving themselves by the example of any other nation, except that of the Japanese... In China, and in several other governments of Asia, the executive power charges itself both with the reparation of the high-roads, and with the maintenance of the navigable canals. In the instructions which are given to the governor of each province, those objects, it is said, are constantly recommended to him, and the judgment which the court forms of his conduct is very much regulated by the attention which he appears to have paid to this part of his instructions. This branch of public police, accordingly, is said to be very much attended to in all those countries, but particularly in China, where the high-roads, and still more the navigable canals, it is pretended, exceed very much every thing of the same kind which is known in Europe... In China, the principal revenue of the sovereign consists in a tenth part of the produce of all the lands of the empire. This tenth part, however, is estimated so very moderately, that, in many provinces, it is said not to exceed a thirtieth part of the ordinary produce... Some part of the public revenue of China, however, is said to be paid in this manner. The mandarins and other tax-gatherers will, no doubt, find their advantage in continuing the practice of a payment, which is so much more liable to abuse than any payment in money. If raw silk could be imported from China and Indostan, duty-free, the silk manufacturers in England could greatly undersell those of both France and Italy. There would be no occasion to prohibit the importation of foreign silks and velvets... The improvements in agriculture and manufactures seem likewise to have been of very great antiquity in the provinces of Bengal, in the East Indies, and in some of the eastern provinces of China, though the great extent of this antiquity is not authenticated by any histories of whose authority we, in this part of the world, are well assured. In Bengal, the Ganges, and several other great rivers, form a great number of navigable canals, in the same manner as the Nile does in Egypt. In the eastern provinces of China, too, several great rivers form, by their different branches, a multitude of canals, and, by communicating with one another, afford an inland navigation much more extensive than that either of the Nile or the Ganges, or, perhaps, than both of them put together. It is remarkable, that neither the ancient Egyptians, nor the Indians, nor the Chinese, encouraged foreign commerce, but seem all to have derived their great opulence from this inland navigation... Sekundärliteratur Colin Mackerras : Adam Smith enjoys on extgremely high reputation for his enormous and innovative contribution to the history of ideas on economics and social evolution. His Wealth of nations is his most famous work and the classic of laissez-faire economics. In it he argues, among a large range of other historical, social, and economic ideas, that free competition is the key to economic and social advance. Smith's view of China was positive in some ways, but not in others. He admired its fertility and size, and did not see it as declining. On the other hand, he was fiercely condemnatory of the fact that it never seemed to change, and that ordinary people were prepared to put up with poverty without trying to better their condition. Smith admired much about China's economy, its extensive internal trade and communications, and its variety of manufactures. On the other hand, his ideas on free competition made him extremely suspicious of China's lack of international trade, which he believed had held the country back in a range of ways, and would likely continue to do so. Smith's emphasis on trade highlights one of the reasons for the deterioration in the Western view of China : the desire for trade with China. Georges-Marie Schmutz : Adam Smith est le père fondateur de plusieurs sciences sociales ; ses réflexions sur la société chinoise ont acquis quelque notoriété dans l'histoire des écrits occidentaux, non pas parce qu'elles sont abondantes, mais parce qu'il est un grand penseur. Smith's application générale de An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations est identique à celle de Montesquieu, à savoir que la Chine, bien que riche, c'est-à-dire socialement très avancée, est privée d'éléments dynamiques ; elle est donc moins 'admirable' économiquement, politiquement et socialement que certains rapports essaient de la faire croire aux Européens. Par ce scepticisme, Montesquieu et Smith se distinguaient des autres penseurs du XVIIIe siècle, en particulier des jésuites et des physiocrates qui tendaient à privilégier des visions angéliques de la Chine. Smith plaçais la Chine au sommet de la hiérarchie des nations. Il la considérait comme une des nations les plus riches ; la plupart des mentions concernent son opulence : la Chine se présente comme beaucoup plus riche que n'importe quelle partie de l'Europe, riche comme une nation ancienne, comme l'ancien Indoustan, le Japon et les Indes orientaltes. La Chine récolte trois fois par an ce qui explique l'étendue de sa richesse, visible par la densité de sa population, l'ampleur du commerce intérieur, la division extensive du travail, la qualité et le prix des marchandises et des transports. Pour Smith, la Chine est donc bien une société avancée, une société ayant dépassé, et de loin, les structures minimales d'organisation sociale. Smith, s'intéressant au comportement des nations, recherche la nature et les causes de cette richesse. Elle résulte selon lui de l'organisation de la société orchestrée en fonction des intérêts impériaux. La richesse agricole, manufacturière et commerciale, explique-t-il, profite au souverain. Il en extrait les impôts à raison d'un dixième des récoltes. Le souverain soutient ces conditions pour lui bénéfiques. Les mandarins qui perçoivent partiellement les impôts sous forme de marchandises – ce qui leur permet d'extraire des parts substantielles pour eux-mêmes - s'accommodent aussi de ce système. En Chine, la richesse de la société – indicatrice de sa nature – est orchestrée par le souverain et dépend donc d'une organisation hiérarchique. L'organisation de la société civile, en Chine, ne dépend pas de lois divines, mais d'un cadre plus limité, celui imposé par les membres hiérarchiquement les plus haut placés dans la société, l'empereur, les mandarins et les pères. La richesse de la Chine est fondée sur des relations orientées vers les aînés, relations caractérisées par le culte des ancêtres. La richesse en soi n'est pas un indicateur déterminant. Ce qu'il faut voir, dit Smith, c'est la composition de cette richesse ; là, la capacité de s'étendre et de progresser est encore plus importante. Comme Smith n'est pas tant intéressé par les nations en elles-mêmes, mais plutôt aux types de richesse acquise par les diverses nations – leur structure sociale particulière – il trouve que la Chine est seulement riche en agriculture et en manufacture, qu'elle est seulement riche à l'intérieur, et qu'elle est entourée de nations sauvages, barbares et par conséquent pauvres. Les grands de la Chine sont beaucoup plus riches que les plus riches Européens ; cela veut dire que la Chine est riche mais avec une énorme population de pauvres et que les travailleurs y sont mal rétribués. La raison trouvée par Smith pour rendre compte de cette situation concerne les rapports de la Chine avec les autres nations. La Chine est riche bien qu'elle néglige le commerce extérieur. Si elle voulait bien s'ouvrir au commerce international, dit-il, elle deviendrait rapidement beaucoup plus riche et sa richesse serait plus saine. Dans les circonstances présentes, la Chine est incapable de rapides progrès. La société chinoise est conçue comme privée de cet agencement unique des rapports, fondé sur la loi naturelle des avantages sociaux. Au lieu de cela, la Chine est vue comme gouvernée par un ordre hiérarchique, soutenue par une morale de vénération envers les aînés et arrangées en groupes familiaux. La famille occupe une place centrale dans la société chinoise, dans la mesure où elle absorbe toutes les relations, ne laissant aucune place au développement de relations constructives au-dehors. La famille occupe tout l'espace social. C'est une institution admirable, mais incapable de donner naissance aux mécanismes de la transformation sociale. L'omniprésence de la famille rend impossible la confrontation des individus, et donc l'adoption d'un comportement particulier, celui décrit dans la théorie des sentiments moraux, permettant le développement de la transformation de la société. Le résultat de ces trois premières caractéristiques est naturellement la continuité, pour laquelle Smith proposa un nouveau terme, celui d'état stationnaire, incapable de s'améliorer, mais très capable de se maintenir. Cette nation agricole ne s'ouvre pas au commerce avec l'étranger, elle est incapable de prendre en charge elle-même son commerce extérieur, que le souverain ne protège pas, méprise et sous-estime. Pour ces raisons, la Chine ne s'améliore pas, elle a attaint, il y a déjà longtemps, l'expansion maximale que ses lois et ses institutions rendent possible. Les références à la Chine forment une image de la Chine qui nourrit la tradition sociologique en train de se former. La nature d'une société est produite en inversant la démarche classique es philosophes sociaux. C'est de la richesse compare la plus récente que découle la nature la plus ancienne de la société. Dans la démarche classique, on part de l'histoire, de la tradition, et de là on établit le rang. Dans la démarche moderne, on part de l'observation, du présent, et à partir de ce présent observé, on interprète la société, on redéfinit son histoire. Dans l'analyse de la Chine par Smith, les catégories que nous privilégions dans cette recherche sont nettement moins visibles, à cause de son approche particulière. Smith réduit la Chine aux dimensions d'un exemple quantifiable. Ashley Eva Millar : Smith described how a rich state is more likely to be attacked. The government must either mandate regular military drills for its populace or establish a standing army in order to effectively defend itself. China's failures on this front and the lessons they offered were nearly unanimously recognised. The second duty of the sovereign, according to Smith, was to protect members of society by establishing 'an exact administration of justice'. Interest in this theme can be divided into two areas. The first area centre on protecting the integrity of the justice system and reducing corruption in government. China's system of government, based on an ancient philosophy, offered a wealth of information on this topic. There was a great deal of agreement between sinophiles and sinophobes on the Chinese model of regulation and the protections provided by the Chinese system of governance. The second area of interest was the relationship between security of property and civil society. Less information was available on Chinese property rights, likely because of the differences in the Chinese system and because of incommensurabilities in the conceptualization of property rights. When Enlightenment philosophers did address Chinese property rights it was in the context of having agriculture as the basis of society and the level of debate reflected Europe's broader engagement with the Chinese model of political economy. In the Wealth of nations Smith addressed physiocratic arguments by contrasting agricultural systems to mercantile or commercial systems. Like Quesnay, Smith also relied on Poivre for his discussion of Chinese property rights, which he directly connected to its agricultural system. According to Poivre, those who buy a field or receive it by inheritance become the 'lord and master' of that land – a clear attack on feudalism. Poivre concluded his book by imploring the kings of Europe to follow the example of China, where the 'lands are as free as the people ; no feudal services, and no fines of alienation'. Smith followed Poivre in arguing that in 'China, the great ambition of every man is to get possession of some little bit of land, either in property or in leaste ; and leases are there said to be granted upon very moderate terms, and to be sufficiently secured to the lessees'. Smith believed that the precedence of agriculture explained China's stationary status. 'Upon their present plan they have little opportunity of improving themselves by the example of any other nation : except that of the Japanese. Thus, Smith is in agreement with the Physiocrats on the description of the Chinese system but not on the implications of the model. The fact that there was debate and discussion reflects the openness of the European approach to evidence from the Chinese system, especially relative to the assumptions of superiority that would come to characterize debate in the nineteenth century. The third expense and duty of the sovereign, according to Smith, was 'that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works' that are advantageous to society but do not offer enough profit to induce private agents. Smith divided this duty into two main parts : the first involved facilitating and promoting commerce ; and the second was education. Most Enlightenment observers agreed that China had a well-developed public infrastructure, particularly with regard to its canal system. Smith directly referenced China in his discussion of this topic, but again deemed it to be a unique case because of its land-based economy from which Europe could not use any lessons. Drawing on Jesuit sources, Smith noted the importance of public works, such as canals and highways in China. Though he stated that this was the case in several governments of Asia, it was seen to be particularly so in China. Smith drew largely from the primary sources, which highlighted the importance of fulfilling administrative duties in executing public works in China. Smith's explanation for the importance of public infrastructure in China reflects his assessment of varying paths of development, for he again emphasized the unique nature of China's political economy. Describing why the Chinese government had the incentive to invest in public works, Smith connected the nature of its agricultural system first to taxation and subsequently to public works. It is natural for Chinese emperors to support agriculture, he argued, as their yearly revenue depends on it. Because the government revenue is collected from the land, the executive has the incentive to maintain the high roads and navigable canals in order to facilitate the marketing of produce. Smith contrasted this interpretation to Europe where sovereigns might draw the greater part of their revenue from the produce of the land is 'neither so immediate, nor so evident'. For this reason, European sovereigns have less interest in investing into roads and canals to facilitate the marketing of produce. This argument again shows how Smith dismissed aspects of the Chinese state by deeming them non-replicable in a European context because these qualities stemmed from China's unique characteristics. Smith's argument should, therefore, not be seen simply as an evaluation of the Chinese state. Enlightenment scholars viewed the government's provision of infrastructure in China as very successful. However, their discourse did not suggest the replication of similar models in Europe, as they were seen as contingent on China's unique land-based economy. Adam Smith carefully considered where the funds for the main expenses of government should be derived from. This topic was of the utmost importance, for without sufficient revenues and their proper management, the aforementioned duties of government could not be fulfilled. There was general agreement between Europeans who visited China and Enlightenment thinkers as to the efficiency of the Chinese fiscal system. The high level of revenue the state collected, combined with low rates of taxation for individuals and the consistency and efficiency with which taxes were collected, earned almost unanimous praise from European writers. China's large population and agricultural base were portrayed as unique and inimitable. Smith explained how the sovereigns of China, as well as those from ancient Egypt and the kingdoms of India, have 'always derived the whole, or by far the most considerable part, of their revenue from some sort of land-tax or land-rent'. He described the one-tenth tax in China and also noted that in some parts of the empire it is only one-thirtieth. Smith compared this to tax rates elsewhere, demonstrating the low tax burden on Chinese peasants. While he believed this system worked well in China, he cautioned that payment in kind rather than in money is more liable to manipulation and fraud. He warned that the 'Mandarins and other tax-gatherers will, no doubt, find their advantage in continuing the practice of a payment which will, no doubt, find their advantage in continuing the practice of a payment which is so much more liable to abuse than any payment in money'. Smith articulated the fundamental differences of the Chinese tax system, based on an agricultural economy that collected a portion of its taxes in kind, in comparison to Europe's increasingly money-based political economies. Adam Smith in Beijing [ID D27091]. Adam Smith, der berühmte schottische Philosoph und Ökonom des 18. Jahrhunderts, war Arrighi zufolge keineswegs der Verfechter des Kapitalismus, zu dem ihn die späteren Ideologen und Apologeten der kapitalistischen Gesellschaftsordnung gemacht haben. Das Prinzip der «unsichtbaren Hand» des Marktes, das automatisch dazu führt, dass die rücksichtslose Verfolgung der eigenen Interessen in der Konkurrenz zum größtmöglichen Wohlergehen aller führt, ist meistens das Einzige, was aus seinem 1776 erschienen Hauptwerk Der Wohlstand der Nationen herausgegriffen und als Rechtfertigung von Konkurrenz und Ausbeutung benutzt wird. Bei Adam Smith ist dieses Prinzip aber an einen politischen und institutionellen Rahmen gebunden, in dem der Einfluss des Kapitals zurückgedrängt und die Profite niedrig gehalten werden. Der Markt hat nur solange seine Berechtigung, wie es dem Staat gelingt, die Bildung übermächtiger Kapitale zu verhindern, und ihre Konkurrenz untereinander nicht dazu führt, dass die Löhne der Arbeiter und die Renten der Pächter sinken, sondern der Profit selber auf das geringste mögliche Niveau gesenkt wird. Der tendenzielle Fall der Profitrate war keine Erfindung von Marx, sondern wurde von Smith als eine positive Folge der Konkurrenz unter den Kapitalisten gesehen, die deren Einfluss in Grenzen hält. Was für das Schulbuchwissen über Adam Smith noch überraschender sein mag: Den Idealzustand einer solchen Gesellschaft, in der es zwar einen Markt aber keine die Gesellschaft beherrschende Kapitalistenklasse gibt, sah Smith am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts in China verwirklicht. Das Land war damals die größte Wirtschaftsnation der Welt, die Importe aus dieser hochentwickelten Ökonomie spielten eine große Rolle und Denker der Aufklärung waren fasziniert von dem dort erreichten Stand der Wissenschaft, Kultur aber auch der Staatskunst oder des Geld- und Kreditwesens. Es gab Handels-, Geld- und Manufakturkapitalisten in China, aber es gab keinen Selbstlauf einer an der «endlosen Akkumulation» von Kapital orientierten Expansion. Smith bezeichnet diesen Zustand daher als "stationär" – im positiven Sinne als erreichter und gesicherter Wohlstand. Der Entwicklungsweg dahin sei in China der «natürliche» gewesen, das heißt ausgehend von der Verbesserung in der Landwirtschaft habe sich ein Manufakturwesen entwickelt und erst auf dessen Basis der innere und äußere Handel. Im Gegensatz dazu hätten sich die westeuropäischen Staaten über einen «unnatürlichen» und «verkehrten» Weg entwickelt: ausgehend vom auswärtigen Handel seien die Manufakturen entstanden und erst über deren Entwicklung sei es dann zu Verbesserungen in der Landwirtschaft gekommen. |
|