That link is a good overview of 19th century Britain imho.
Also from my post, you can get to Larouches anti British propaganda. It is the link to the American Almanac. I guess it's written for the farming communities. It's first class, they don't teach the kids here that kind of stuff -g-
(see the Queen of England pushes dope)
Example...
Adam Smith and Karl Marx:
Apologists for the Empire's "Globalization"
The 19th Century was dominated by a battle between the supporters of the American System, on one side, and the British Empire, on the other. During the middle of the century, the circles around American economist, Henry Carey, fought for a series of projects to develop Asia, centered around railroads, as is described in the recent EIR cover-story, ``The 'land-bridge': Henry Carey's global development program.''
Had the Carey circles grand design not been sabotaged by the British Empire, all of Asia would have developed as dramatically as Japan, which escaped the control of the British, and formed an alliance with the Carey circles during the Meiji Restoration.
The science of economics, as embodied in the American System, was founded by Leibniz. The modern embodiment of this science, is found in the works of Lyndon LaRouche such as, So You Wish to Learn All About Economics: Successful human survival is guaranteed only when society organizes successive creative breakthroughs in science and technology, which are then applied economically, to increasing man's power over nature, resulting in increases in the relative potential population density.
A successful society is characterized by a rising living standard for its population, increasing investment in factories and basic infrastructure, and the generation of additional surplus, which is invested in generating new discoveries in science and technology.
The British system denied any role for human creativity, and instead argued, that if man merely followed his hedonistic desires, pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, objective laws would naturally guide society to achieve the best allocation of wealth. Bernard de Mandeville stated explicitly in his Fable of the Bees, that men, in following their hedonistic desires, even in pursuit of evil ends, would ensure the best result for society.
Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, followed this belief, that human behavior was best ordered by each man following his hedonistic desires to their lawful conclusion. He argued that opium was a legitimate product, the same as any other commodity, that the objective laws of the ``invisible hand'' must be allowed to determine all economic activity, and anything which stood in the way, such as national governments, were an obstacle which must be removed.
Smith, a propagandist for British colonialism, argued that human progress was advanced with the spread of this ``free market'' globally, through the expansion of the British Empire.
A similar defense of British colonialism was also advanced by Karl Marx. Marx has an undeserved reputation as an opponent of British imperialism, because his writings were designed to appeal to, and manipulate people, based on their grievances. Marx emigrated from Germany to England at age 30, where he became a dupe of British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston.
Palmerston dominated the British government from 1830 to 1865, and, was the central figure in efforts to make the British Empire into a new Roman Empire. He directed British strategy in the Opium Wars. He also kept a stable of radicals and terrorists for purposes of destabilizing other nations. (Eleven countries have recently denounced the British government for harboring terrorists, demonstrating that the British have continued this practice to this day.)
In Marx's early writings, he adopted Aristotle's definition of man as ``a political animal,'' even using the ancient Greek term, used by Aristotle. Consequently, he rejected the conception that man advances society through creative discovery, and instead argued that society advanced according to mechanistic laws through a natural progression, from ancient society, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Marx called Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, ``an immense step forward'' because it reduced the value of all economic activity to the value placed on it, by the universal free market.
Marx attacked Carey's program for national economic development as a regression from Adam Smith. He rejected Henry Carey's attack on ``the diabolical influence of England on the world-market,'' by claiming that it was simply, ``the natural laws of capitalist production,'' and attacked Carey's plans for an alliance with Russia to defeat the British Empire by labeling him a ``Russophile.''
------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Marx Defends British Opium War
Marx's role as an apologist for the British Empire's ``globalization'' is explicit in his defense of the British Empire's rape of India. Marx advanced a Mandevillian argument, that, because ``capitalism'' is superior to ``oriental despotism'', even though the intent and actions of British colonialism were evil, British colonialism benefitted India!
Even more explicit is Marx's defense of Britain's first Opium War. Amidst much bravado about the potential for world revolution, Marx praised the Opium War for throwing China into chaos. He claimed that Britain was advancing civilization in China, by destroying China's old culture, and opening up China to the international economy. He even reported, approvingly, that British policies were causing such unemployment in China, that displaced Chinese workers were being used as slave labor throughout the world. Karl Marx wrote in a July 22, 1853 article in the New York Daily Tribune:
``Whatever be the social causes, and whatever religious, dynastic, or national shape they may assume, that have brought about the chronic rebellions subsisting in China for about ten years past, and now gathered together in one formidable revolution, the occasion of this outbreak has unquestionably been afforded by the English cannon forcing upon China that soporific drug called opium. Before the British arms the authority of the Manchu dynasty fell to pieces; the superstitious faith in the Eternity of the Celestial Empire broke down; the barbarous and hermetic isolation from the civilized world was infringed; and an opening was made for that intercourse which has since proceeded so rapidly under the golden attractions of California and Australia. At the same time the silver coin of the Empire, its life-blood, began to be drained away to the British East Indies.''
Reflecting the racism which dominated England, where the majority of the population enthusiastically supported the first Opium War (there were popular demonstrations against the second Opium War), Marx defends the British-forced addiction of China:
``It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity.''
Marx even argued that the Chinese had a disposition for opium:
``The Chinese, it is true, are no more likely to renounce the use of opium than are the Germans to forswear tobacco.''
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Carey Refutes the British System
The devastating flaw in Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and all who claimed the British Empire was advancing more backward civilizations, was identified by Henry Carey: The British System is not capitalism. Rather, the British Empire, and its effects, can be best described by comparing them, to the oligarchy of the ancient Roman Empire, and the destruction which they wrought on the world. Carey presented a devastating expose of the British Empire in his 1853 book, The Slave Trade, Domestic & Foreign, Why it Exists & and How it May be Extinguished. He demonstrated that the British system violated the requirements for successful human survival, and, that opium production was a lawful result of the destructive nature of the British System.
Carey described how the Roman system was based on centralizing the power of governing and taxing. He showed how this led, lawfully, to exhaustion and collapse, resulting in a severe drop in population:
``Still onward the city grows, absorbing the wealth of the world, and with it grow the poverty, slavery, and rapacity of the people, the exhaustion of provinces, and the avarice and tyranny of rulers and magistrates, until at length the empire, rotten at the heart, becomes the prey of barbarians, and all become slaves alike,--thus furnishing proof conclusive that the community which desires to command respect for its own rights must practice respect for those of others; which lies at the base of all Christianity--'Do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.'|''
Carey next showed that, while the British Empire strongly resembled these features of the Roman Empire, it was even more destructive, because it had also added commercial centralization. England was committed to enforcing a monopolistic control over the world economy, centralizing industry in England, and reducing the rest of the world to the production of raw materials, which were sold at prices dictated by England.
``England, on the contrary, has sought to restrict her subjects and the people of the world in their modes of employment; and this she has done with a view to compel them to make all their exchanges in her single market, leaving to her to fix the prices of all she bought and all she sold, thus taxing them at her discretion in both time and money.''
Benjamin Franklin had attacked this British policy 100 years earlier, and, correctly argued that the development of American manufactures, would improve the productivity of the British dominions, as a whole, and enrich both the Colonies and England. However, the Venetian oligarchy, firmly in control of England, was not interested in enriching nations, but rather, in consolidating and spreading their oligarchical system. So, Franklin recognized that a break with Venetian-controlled England was necessary.
Carey demonstrated, in graphic detail, that the British Empire's system of ``globalization'' had devastating effects on India. Prior to the takeover of India by the East India Company, the Indian economy was characterized by the existence of native manufacture of cloth and other goods, which made possible a division of labor, and a higher level of productivity for the economy as a whole. The British demanded one-half of the gross product of the land, as tribute from the areas that they controlled, and imposed a tax collection system which severely disrupted the economy.
Even more deadly, the British imposed a policy of technological apartheid, banning the export of machinery, from England to India, and refusing to develop India's rich iron and coal deposits. Taxes were imposed to deliberately suppress native manufacturing.
Carey stated:
``The Hindoo, like the negro, is shut out from the workshop. If he attempts to convert his cotton into yarn, his spindle is taxed in nearly all of the profit it can yield him. If he attempts to make cloth, his loom is subjected to a heavy tax, from which that of his wealthy English competitor is exempt. His iron ore and his coal must remain in the ground, and if he dares to apply his labour even to the collection of the salt which crystallizes before his door, he is punished by fine and imprisonment.''
The introduction of steam driven machinery, was used by the British to devastate India's native cloth manufacturers, rather than to revolutionize Indian production. Although the steam engine had been developed by Benjamin Franklin's collaborators, who intended that it be used to improve the productivity of labor, the British applied it to their slave labor system, filling the factories with workers, including children, who worked 15 to 17 hours a day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Trade Destroys Indian Cloth Manufacturing
Carey describes how in 1813, British ``free trade'' removed tariffs on cloth imported into India, ``but with the restriction on the export of machinery and artisans maintained in full force.'' Within twenty years, Indian cloth manufacturing was completely wiped out. The result was not merely mass unemployment and starvation of cloth manufacturers, but the impoverishment of cotton cultivators, since cotton now had to be shipped all the way to England, and the British now had a monopoly control of cotton consumption.
Henry Carey demonstrated that this British looting had the effect of reducing the ability of India to support its population.
Carey also understood that the destructive nature of the British system contained an inherent tendency toward bankruptcy, requiring it to constantly find new sources of loot. The conquest of Bengal led to an initial surge in tax revenues. However, by 1815, the Company was 40 million pounds sterling in debt. The Company's 150,000-strong army was consuming three-quarters of its annual budget. The looting of India had so severely damaged the Indian economy that taxes and revenues were declining. The Company's major source of revenue was its China trade: tea paid for by opium.
As Carey stated:
``Calcutta grows, the city of palaces, but poverty and wretchedness grow as the people of India find themselves more and more compelled to resort to that city to make their exchanges.... Now, every man must send his cotton to Calcutta, thence to go to England with the rice and the indigo of his neighbours, before he and they can exchange food for cloth or cotton--and the larger the quantity they send the greater is the tendency to decline in price. With every extension of the system there is increasing inability to pay the taxes, and increasing necessity for seeking new markets in which to sell cloth and collect what are called rents--and the more wide the extension of the system the greater is the difficulty of collecting revenue sufficient for keeping the machine of government in motion. This difficulty it was that drove the representatives of British power and civilization into become traders in that pernicious drug, opium.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British East India Company's Opium Monopoly
The East India Company established a monopoly over the production of opium, shortly after taking over Bengal. Before each growing season, Company officers went through the villages contracting with the peasants on how much acreage to plant, and making loans to cover costs. Indian peasants sold the opium juice to the Company, whence it was taken to the factory. The opium juice was processed into a form suitable for smoking, and formed into three pound cakes, which were then wrapped in poppy pedals. Forty of these cakes were loaded into chests, each stamped with the symbol of the East India Company.
In a completely transparent fraud of ``free trade,'' the Company then auctioned off these chests to ``country traders,'' (whom it pretended were independent), at roughly four times the cost of production. These traders were licensed by the Company, and in some cases financed by it. The Company would even give the ``country traders'' opium on consignment, and collect payment in Canton (Guangzhou) after the opium had been sold.
The great nation of China, which had cities of 1 million inhabitants, while the largest European city had only a population of 100,000, represented an enticing target. China's population of 300 million was some 20 times that of England. The British Navy had complete superiority over the antiquated Chinese navy. However, occupying and garrisoning China was impossible.
------------------------------------------------------------
What the British Will Never Forget
Were you to read the British press today, you would learn that the British Empire never forgets its defeats. Along with the defeat by Sudan of General Charles ``Chinese'' Gordon, killed in Khartoum in 1885, one of the nastiest setbacks ever suffered by the British, was the dismissal of their envoy, Lord Macartney by the Chinese Emperor in 1794. Hoping to ``beat'' the Russians and others to the China market, the British sent Macartney, with a large entourage, and ships full of trinkets, to attempt to entice the Emperor into opening China to British trade. But the Emperor decided, rightly, that the British had nothing to offer him, nor China, and, after ordering Macartney to ``tremblingly obey,'' sent him packing.
The British would follow the earlier example of the Dutch, who pacified Indonesia with opium: the Dutch East India Company began shipping opium to Java in 1659, and by the middle of the next century, 100 tons were arriving every year, in the city of Batavia, alone. The opium addicts and the corrupt officials who collected bribes to allow smuggling, effectively became allies with the British in subverting China. Opium had a devastating effect on the Chinese military, and on the Chinese intelligensia.
Although the Chinese had used opium as a medicine, there was no widespread addiction before the British arrived. The Portuguese had smuggled some opium to China. The first major shipment of opium, was arranged in 1781, by the Company's Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who described opium as a ``pernicious'' commodity, ``which the wisdom of the Government should carefully restrain from internal consumption.'' It was a financial disaster. The opium was brought to Canton, the only city where the Chinese allowed foreigners to trade. The Chinese showed little interest, so the ship left without selling its opium. The Company lost a quarter-of-a-million dollars.
However, steady British smuggling paid off. By 1804, the revenues from opium sales to China, were sufficient to cover the cost of tea, imported from China. Between 1804 and 1806, $7 million were transferred out of China.
Until 1820, the Company practiced a policy of limiting opium shipments to less than 5,000 chests, sufficient to gain substantial loot, but calculated so as not to provoke a response from the Chinese.
However, the bankruptcy of the East India Company, and a strategy of more intensive looting of India, required a new, more destructive policy for China as well. In 1817, the British launched their ``free trade'' offensive against India, flooding it with English cloth, while blocking the development of Indian cloth manufacture. The British required increased sales of opium to pay for the shipments of cloth into India. The Company shifted to a policy of maximizing opium smuggling (and addiction, as well).
The Company even defended its policy, claiming that it was necessary to stop competition from other opium smugglers, declaring in 1819, that its policy was ``to endeavour to secure the command of the Market by furnishing a Supply on so enlarged a scale and on such reasonable terms as shall prevent competition.''
The Chinese made a limited effort to stop opium smuggling in 1821. The British responded by moving the base of their opium-smuggling operations out of Canton, to the small island of Lintin inside Canton Bay, where the Chinese navy could not threaten it. The smugglers' ships each carried about ten cannon, and were more powerful than any fleet which the Chinese Emperor could deploy against them. The trading companies anchored old ships off Lintin Island, which stored the opium until small ships smuggled it ashore. The opium trade increased from 4,244 chests in the 1820-21 season to 18,956 by 1830-31. By 1831, the opium trade into China was two-and-a-half times greater than the tea trade. It was probably the largest trade in a single commodity anywhere in the world. |
