 in the very late last 10 years or so of the empire's existence. In doing that, I'm hoping that I can address, or at least put it on the table, how much more on our question, which may seem somewhat trite, as I pose it, but that question is why liberal policies, and by the same, of course, possible liberal, you know, policies, why are they, are they, why states or policies amend classical liberal policies? And one of the responses, of course, one answer to that, is that these are banned in response to changing terms, changing economic realities or other kinds of economic needs that society faces. Another answer to the question is that states or societies abandon classical liberal economic policies in the pursuit of some other goals, some other social or political, in any case, non-economic goals or strategies. And so I wanted to put that on the table to keep that in mind the past, as I tell you this very, to me, a very, very historical story for the next few minutes about the lay-down of the empire. Because as a matter of fact, this question occurs in the economic history of the lay-down of the empire, and it is not huge, not a huge field of study, but interesting nonetheless. Because in the 19th century, in the 19th century, economic thought and official law of the state, economic policy, was granted in classical liberalism, kind of free-trading, property-related, some of those barriers, these kinds of things. By the early 20th century, in the early 20th century, these policies were banned. So I'm asking why that was. I want to look at it in my brief remarks this afternoon. In the seminary literature, the way this question is answered is usually that these classical liberal policies, or the advantage of these classical liberal policies, was a good thing, actually. It showed kind of economic maturity on the part of the rulers of the empire and the arrivals who had ideas about free-trading, a little bit of that property rights and this kind of thing, that this was somehow or other an almost unnatural set in the evolution of the automatic state, the abandonment of liberal and non-liberal policies in exchange for status forms. But as you can probably guess by now, I'm going to tell you a little bit of a different story as to why these policies were, in fact, granted by 1914. As I imagine, in the 19th century, the automatic state had pursued a largely liberal economic program. And this continued after 1908, so I have something that's really starting to be known for revolution. I'm going to stop that, but we'll do this very, very briefly, I think. This was a revolution that was spearheaded by the Houston Coalition of individuals in groups, collectively called by Europeans, this is not by themselves, by Europeans, called the Young Turks, and the dominant party of this coalition was called the Committee on Union of Progress. And as you might be able to tell by their name, they were motivated, primarily by the positives, by the whole team of positives. They just substituted the order of progress, the union of progress, but there may be ideological background with the positives. So this meant that they had a very progressive, modernizing sort of agenda for themselves and for the empire. Initially, they were obligated to modernize the empire within a liberal or solidary economic context. And their first minister of finance, I mean, the new government, was named Mehmed Javi Bey. He had been a member of their inner circle, as it was a long-term member of the committee. And he was, and I can say, a strong supporter of liberal economic policies. So that's what he wanted to strengthen. Property rights, and this is the kind of tax code, and so forth. And he took a number of steps in this direction. He introduced a simplified method of tax collection, which raises government revenue by 25%, and then maybe even one year at least. He also supervised and passage a land law in 1911. And he inherited the law in 1913, both of which simplified and streamlined rules and regulations regarding copyrights in land and in movable public. He also was a very strong opponent of free trade and a strong opponent of protectionism. He believed that protectionism would destroy any long-term votes for the empire's prosperity. And one of his many essays, for example, in the essays, he wrote that protectionism is the greatest enemy of the worker. Behind protective tariffs continued two or three capitalists, yes, just his owners of capital, that would be enriched while thousands of our countrymen would be impoverished. So instead of trying to build a state-supported industry behind protection barriers, he stressed the importance of agriculture and commerce. Another one of his essays he wrote, perhaps overstating his point, we are today, we'll be tomorrow in agricultural country. So he will need that. The best goals for the economic development of the empire lay in exploiting the unparalleled advantage in agriculture. He also argued that such domestic and foreign capital as there was would be best directed if possible towards the development of more productive exploitation of the unparalleled agricultural resources through such things as railways, working movements, wagon roads, so on and so forth. And he hoped that these policies would increase foreign investment, which he acted immediately important as a way of developing the empire. And this plan led to a number of difficulties. The liberals, among them Mike John, faced two important but related challenges to their ideas, and for the purposes of this paper, calling them socialists and solidarists. The socialists were not very numerous in the empire. They didn't have some members in the parliament. And one of the most unspoken members of the parliament was a deputy from Istanbul named Krikar Sohrab Effendi. And there was a very interesting exchange in the minutes of the island parliament between Javi Pei and Sohrab Effendi over the issue of protectionism. And basically to sort of distribute this in a nutshell, Javi Pei's argument was that protections to the terrorists would essentially ruin any prospects for the economic development of the empire by shutting down the possibility of foreign capital investment, whereas Sohrab Effendi argued that foreign investment was really just an example of the depredation of European finance capital that it really was, would basically enslave the empire. Now, the thing that is very interesting to twist on all of this is that the writings by a lot of socialists didn't have a tremendous and wide circulation, weren't really very popular until, interesting enough, an import, an import by the name of Alexander Hellkamp, who was a Russian socialist, a Marxist nationalist, moved to the empire in 1912, a kind of self-imposed exile. And Hellkamp, writing under the pen name Harbos Effendi, actually popularized, saves the economic ideas of the empire. He argued that lots of the Marxists went in this style. The Ottoman Empire was being reduced to the status of a colony through the investments of European bankers and capitalists, that these precious capitalists were, for instance, enslaved in the empire. And the only way out of this situation, Harbos Effendi, was for the sake of its strong role in managing the economy, and especially fostering industry through protected tariffs. Now, before all of this was, of course, I guess dialectical, right? What he wanted to see was the development of an Ottoman Urazi, the Urazi or the eventual socialist revolution. So he said, you know, when you get Ura, we draw a class in the Ottoman Empire through these with the help of the state. Now, what's very interesting to me is that Harbos Effendi published these writings, published these essays, not from the Ottoman socialists' press, but he published them in a journal called Turkish Home. Now, this magazine, Turkish Home, wasn't filled with patriotic interests or oppressed keys, or it wasn't that kind of a Turkish home, thankfully. It was actually the magazine published by Turkish Nationalists, which is one of the movements which I would stop today referring to these remarks this morning. This was one of the election currents circulating during the last few years of the Ottoman Empire. And the Turkish Nationalists were interested in Harbos Effendi's thinking. It's not because they were socialists, but because he made it very well with their own agenda. And their own agenda, of course, was to transform the Ottoman Empire into a Turkish state. Again, in particular, they were interested in the ideological tool which they were, which they were engaged in this effort. It sometimes translated into Solidarism, which is the subject of it. And this is very similar, this idea, it's very similar to some of that, you were circulating all over your work in North America at about the same time. It reported to have to espouse a kind of third way between capitalism and socialism, the one that in place of the class conflict of socialism, more allegedly in capitalism, it substituted cooperation between classes and a state-directed effort to reorganize society and the economy into corporate bonds. And these ideas were circulating all over western Europe and North America at the same time by organizing society in its way, society that is modernized, the economy could be strengthened and the class conflict could be avoided while there's only one in one go. Part of this program, if you're a company at the rate of this, the German part of this also are more supportive of the industry, but it's a pie in itself. Correct. So by 1913 or so, therefore, the liberal and states' economic programs pretty well stayed down on both sides and the liberals ended up losing it twice. Well, I think that the reason that the liberal ideas were fired and abandoned because it's solidarist ideas that economic ideas were company solidarism fit very neatly with the development of Turkish nationalist ideas on the part of the members of the community in progress. Not only that, in January 1913, some of the members of the community being in progress by which they essentially seized control of the Ottoman Empire. So by extradition in 1913, many of the members of the community in progress were interested in developing a Turkish nation and building a Turkish national entity and Turkish nation that would nominate the umpire and they seized upon the ideas of solidarism as an ideological tool to put that program into effect. So all they needed then was the opportunity to do so, which happened along in the summer of 1914. And some stories are even one of the reasons that the Ottoman State became involved in World War I in 1914 was precisely to provide a national price situation in the empire. During this, they could implement some of these, some of their and the local program. Indeed, they got right to work. As soon as they joined the war, they passed a law or encouraged the industry, which set up state control, state aggression over the customer development. They established something called the Society of Guilds, which sought to reorganize all the economic activity in the umpire or part of the state-directed appropriations and something called the Committee of National Defense that again sought to bring all economic activity under the control of the umpire state. These different committees and corporations, of course, were all staffed in the CUP and the CUP's plan was to use these libraries then as the nucleus of the Turkish national, which was the independent state. Well, as a matter of fact, they actually did have some success during the war in both cases. There was some industrialization and some of these categories and the different CUP-sponsored organizations did become very wealthy. They became known as the rich of 1916 for all of the money they made, nominating these different state-sponsored organizations. But the real price, of course, for all of this was taken by people who were not connected to the CUP networks and largely these were the small farmers and sharecroppers of Anatolia and the workers in the urban centers of the umpire. During the war the rural economy was largely wracked and prices in cities during the course of the war rose by 400%. So to wrap this story up then the CUP's sovereignist state-based policies led the umpire to war and ruling the economy. And as Mehmed Javi predicted these kinds of policies seemed to even infringe a few people in this case the CUP's agents who are either poverty or empire. Thank you.