Yan Xishan\u2019s Cosmopolitan Economy <\/b><\/p>\n
In his pamphlet, <\/span>How To Prevent Warfare and Establish the Foundation of World Peace<\/span><\/i>, Yan Xishan offers a wide variety of solutions to the issues plaguing the international system. Given, however, that its intended purpose was a rebuff of communism, the section on the economy proves especially complex and at times contradictory. Within his \u201ccosmopolitan economy\u201d, Yan provides three main principles that ought to be followed. These three principles simultaneously blend and reject both capitalism and communism in the international economy. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe first principle is that labor should be coincident with enjoyment. What is meant by this is that the fruit of one\u2019s labor should be wholly given to the laborer for his contribution of labor. It should not be exploited by any method or system.\u201d (p. 18)\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yan\u2019s first principle of the cosmopolitan economy describes a system in which the laborer is directly rewarded with \u201cthe fruit of one\u2019s labor\u201d, rather than allowing the labor to be exploited by the system. Despite Yan\u2019s opposition to the communist economic system, this principle carries a Marxist sentiment in regards to the exploitation of the worker. Marx and Engel, in the opening lines of <\/span>The Communist Manifesto<\/span><\/i>, describe the historical basis for one class exploiting another. They argue the exploitation of the proletariat can only be remedied by a remaking of the world economic system in which private property is abolished and all are rewarded equally, sharing in the goods of society. While Yan does not exactly reflect this sentiment, his principle shares a number of commonalities with the ideology he is writing in opposition of. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe second principle is that the laborer should be provided with ample opportunity for offering his labor. The worker should work in order to support his livelihood. If he is not given the opportunity to work, he will have no chance of sustaining his livelihood.\u201d (p. 18)\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yan\u2019s second principle primarily serves as a critique of the capitalist system, which he describes as \u201cexploitation and the existing monetary defect.\u201d<\/span> Within the context of the Great Depression, Yan\u2019s critique of a worker having \u201cno chance of sustaining his livelihood\u201d was no doubt a relevant critique of the world capitalist system. An interesting comparison to Yan\u2019s desire to provide work for all workers is President Roosevelt’s New Deal, which similarly sought to create ample work for workers. The New Deal\u2019s \u201cThree R\u2019s\u201d, as they are frequently referred to by historians, sought relief for the poor and unemployed, economic recovery and a reform of the financial system to prevent another such crisis. To some extent, Roosevelt\u2019s New Deal reflects Yan\u2019s sentiment by providing new economic opportunity for workers, in order to bring the unemployed back into the economic system and support a livelihood. So while Yan is critiquing the capitalist system, arguably, there is a capitalist example within the constraints of Yan\u2019s theory that successfully provided \u201cample opportunity for offering […] labor\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe third principle is that we should increase the effectiveness of labor. What is meant by this is that by raising the efficiency of a worker, his standard of living can be raised. […] workers have not been much benefited by the increase in production made possible by scientific development. […] Though wages have been increased, the said increase has been offset by the rise in the price of commodities.\u201d<\/span> (pp. 18-19) Yan\u2019s third principle, once again, seems to represent an almost communist sentiment, writing that \u201cthe sole party that has benefited is the capitalist class. (the owner of the plant)\u201d.Yan suggests a publicly owned factory in which some amount of the profits made off of the increased productivity of technology will not go to the owner, but be set aside. Of course, the most notable example of publicly owned factories is within communist countries, where there is an abolition of privately owned property and business. Therefore, Yan\u2019s third principle seems to exist in a strange grey area between communism and capitalism as he is still encouraging the productions of goods for a market place, while also encouraging the creation of public factories. <\/span><\/p>\n Yan\u2019s cosmopolitan economy principles seem to straddle communism and capitalism, with Yan picking and choosing from aspects of the two economic systems. But above all, Yan\u2019s priority is the worker and his ability to provide for himself. This sentiment seems to me to most closely mirror the communist ideals of the worker and the working class. However, Yan\u2019s work primarily does critique communism in other ways, particularly the political aspects of that ideology, leaving readers with no clear understanding of Yan\u2019s political ideology beyond the creation of an international system based on cosmopolitanism. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yan Xisan, <\/span>How To Prevent Warfare and Establish the Foundation of World Peace<\/span><\/i>, pamphlet, pp 1-41.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Yan Xishan\u2019s Cosmopolitan Economy In his pamphlet, How To Prevent Warfare and Establish the Foundation of World Peace, Yan Xishan offers a wide variety of solutions to the issues plaguing the international system. Given, however, that its intended purpose was a rebuff of communism, the section on the economy proves especially complex and at times … Continue reading “Yan Xishan’s Cosmopolitan Economy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":141,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83\/revisions\/141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n