The company got established in1600 with an immediate involvement in Asian Spice business. It picked up well to a point of even operating British’s colony in India. At this pace of spurt growth, it became a monopoly. However, the success encountered a gradual dilution once the officials started ignoring the well being of the workers and instead embarked corruption to self enrichment leading to its decline. Later on, Mehta recreated the company hoping that it would have the same impact as it had initially (Robin, 2012).
Buy East India Company Research essay paper online
Robin (2012) argues that, the EIC as a strong association characterized by a spectacular staff of economists, poets, writers and even philosophers. This was particularly strange since it was not usual for a single corporation to enjoy such vast expertise in its staff. The staff however, did not consist of expertise from the entire possible fields. He depicts the company’s death to be rooted in the corrupt practices of the key officials which started during the Battle of Plassey. The company’s officers would engender bitter reactions to this opinion since they facilitated the bribery process and supported it fully. Their prosperity saw them return and set up vast businesses and estates, not to mention political power.
The memory regarding to the corporate impact is still fresh in Indian people, as opposed to other locations for instance England. Lack of any memorials to this corporation, just like the other antiquated companies, further confirms the missing of passion for it by foreign states. (Robin, 2012) also substantiates to this fact through the analysis of the sales of his book in various countries. The stats showed that India was on the lead. He points out the effect of the riotous recognition of East India’s affairs especially the negative part. Libraries in Britain flocked with enormous company’s records enlightening the masses further. Despite this, Mehta went on and recreated the company using the same logo and brand. The later speculated that if the company in question existed to date, it would concern itself with brands of luxury, and he pursued exactly that. The charge here is fair since for sure, a company whose reputation becomes tainted finds it hard to gain acceptance even after its resurrection. However, the officials would passionately embrace the idea and twist it so as to reflect the popularity of their company (Bowen, 2007).
Robin (2012) opinion, remonstrated against the injustice that the company caused in Britain regardless of the richness imparted. The wealth majorly came from the tax that the company devoted. However, due to its far-flung involvement, it arced in its interest, in China and US. This succeeded through the aid of by Boston Tea Party, a globally influential association, which based in the US. The claims in this context are fair since many corporations only capitalize on the monetary benefits while assuming the social hazards therein.
Like any other company, East India Company faced a financial crisis caused by the dents in its governance. However, due to its parent company being based in Britain, the British intervened to bail it out. The corporation viewed as one that has lost its good reputation. This fact assists him in successfully advocating an update of the EIC’s books that spread all over the libraries in Britain (Robin, 2012) argument is fair enough because the company, which deemed too large to fail, nears its detriment if it were not for the involvement of the British. Potential investors and customers have lost faith in it since they speculate risk. The officer’s reaction to this charge would be calculated to remove any blame that may befall them. A probable excuse would be the commitment of the better part of the firm’s finances to taxes, charities and expansion projects (Wild, 1999).
Adam’s deemed opposition to Mercantilism
The term Mercantilism refers to the theism of economics that foreign trade be imperatively controlled by the government in order to guarantee the security of the country’s military. However, free trade induces competition in the market and, as a result; there are lower priced varieties of goods due to the many industries. It regulates the exports and imports conducted to a point of balance. As of this, wars broke out, as a result, particularly in the Europe necessitating expansion of colonies.
Adam purported that there would be much efficiency in the marketplace if it was not subjected to control by the government. However, the presence of brigands and rampant lawlessness hindered the easy flow of the efficiency. He hinted that the governmental intervention presented an arena for ideal market efficiency. The esurient running of the British East India Company took place in the presence of Adam, and he deems to concur with the components of The Social Contract. Clearly, the strident myth of him becoming opposed to Mercantilism is baseless.
His position is exemplified in the company when it calls for limitations on the exportation of gold to be made lenient. It was later on allowed to run a business in the overseas regardless of the effect of the cheap imports of other domestic products. A forceful agreement impacted when the EIC agrees to pay a fortune to the National Exchequer. Initially, the shares of the EIC belonged to rich businessmen and patricians ruling out the governmental ownership which possessed an indirect control only.
Karl Marx’s philosophy
Karl usually gets presented as a radical communist as opposed to a philosopher and his work aided the establishment of oodles of communist governments in the past century. Communism refers to a society whereby everybody gets compelled to contribute as per his or her ability and in return, receive based on their level of need. Hence, Marx’s philosophy surpasses justice (Robin, 2012). Britain owned the EIC and as Marx’s articles on philosophy dictates, the firm served as an avenue to conquer India and as a result, earn money out of it. The taxes paid by the corporation evince a give back to the society according to its needy. Marx further affirms that, the communism holds to date.
The suffering brought about by the EIC contradicts Marx philosophy. In spite of the large donations made by the association to the society, the agony therein overrides it. This concept helps to fix the basis on which companies should be judged which is the effects of the major business as opposed to charitable contributions. As so, the contributions are merely an episodic philanthropically by the administrators (Wild, 1999)
Marx’s and Smith’s perceptions interchanged
Marx, from the deduction, would advocate for the ‘free market’ to be intervened by the government so as to be fair. The lack of intervention in the market raises the risk of overproduction and unfair pricing of goods. He is a communist and hence for the sake of eliminating bandits from the circle; a form of enforcement has to be induced which in this setting is the government intervention. Smith, on the other side, would not support communism due to the outbreak of spurt globalization that necessitates vast movement from one country to the other. The factor of unfair rewarding after completing one part of the deal taints the communism idea. The government and the company are characterized by corrupt staff that can only be described as selfish, making the attempt to induce just communism vague.
Implications of India’s Colonization and The Treaty of Nanjing
Once colonization was banned it meant an increase in matters of lawlessness due to the civilization that would be embedded to the Indian people. The EIC accelerated the Britain’s empire growth in India and later on its conquest. Colonies get depicted as the prime drains on resources in the case of free market for instance East India Company only benefitted the Britons. The Nanjing treaty was a form of unjust to china since they lost money and land despite the introduction of ports that aided the rapid transport of products to China. The long term effects saw the ousting of the Communist Party (Robin, 2012). The contribution does not get reciprocated to buy a fair receipt of resources as the neediness demanded.
Marx, on the contrary, colonization to him, served to strengthen the government’s operations and hence trade. A strict government produces better outcomes and for this circumstance, mercantilism. Since it is needless to eliminate corruption and brigand persons from the market, government involvement in the marketplace will augur well with the situation.