The Wealth of Nations Aims for a Better Society, Not Just Greater Wealth
In the 1980s, the world experienced a significant ideological shift, with one of the central debates revolving around the nature of the free market—or what is often referred to as capitalism. Even after centuries of discussion, human society has yet to fully resolve this fundamental question, wouldn’t you agree?
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-10-29
The depth of Smith’s thinking is far beyond the imagination of ordinary economists? (Wikimedia Commons)
《國富論》是有史以來關於資本主義及其道德含意的最重要著作。它的寄望是讓人們可變得更好，而不是僅僅變得富有…… The Wealth of Nations is the most important book ever written about capitalism and its moral ramification. It was intended to make men better, not just better-off .
──爵利·穆勒（Jerry Muller）
在早前，筆者提到甘迺迪提出了一個「世紀大刁」，希望跟蘇聯來一個大交易，以逐步減低核戰威脅以及開啟一條可逐步通往和平之路，讓雙方都可把資源放在比軍備競賽有意義和有益得多的事情上。
The West’s Longstanding Distrust of Russia
If you know history, you’ll understand why Kennedy’s speech was a breakthrough for the Russians. For centuries, the West has viewed Russia with suspicion. From a Western perspective, the Tsars were always seen as having ambitions to dominate Europe. But from Russia’s perspective, it was the Western European powers that sought to control the continent. Historically, Russia has often taken a defensive stance, and on at least two occasions, it indirectly saved Europe. Without Russia delaying and weakening the forces of Napoleon and Hitler, the entire continent might have fallen much earlier.
During World War II, despite being allies, the Soviet Union and the West remained deeply distrustful of each other. When Germany was defeated, the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, claiming it was a defensive measure. However, the West saw this as clear evidence of Soviet ambitions to expand communism across Europe. This tension led to Churchill’s famous Iron Curtain speech, which marked the beginning of the Cold War. Over the next decade, tensions escalated, reaching a peak during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
I Can Work with the President of the United States
Throughout the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the West painted each other as the enemy. Understanding this context helps us appreciate just how groundbreaking Kennedy’s speech was. His approach was remarkably sincere and fair. According to historical records, his words moved Khrushchev, who reportedly remarked after listening, “I can work with the American president.”
Kennedy’s speech was subsequently published in full in two major Soviet newspapers, Izvestia and Pravda—something previously unimaginable. In the aftermath, the Soviet Union also made compromises on missile dismantling procedures. Just two weeks later, the U.S. sent a delegation led by senior diplomat Averell Harriman to Moscow. After 12 days of negotiations, both sides signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty. Additionally, the United States and the Soviet Union established a direct hotline to prevent future misunderstandings from escalating into crises. This marked an initial breakthrough in how humanity managed nuclear weapons and the threat of war.
Would the World Be Different Today if Kennedy Had Lived Longer?
Records show extensive correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev during and after the Cuban Crisis, much of which remains classified. Perhaps when these letters are unsealed, we will gain deeper insight into Kennedy’s long-term strategy. As Kennedy himself often said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” We must not underestimate the significance of that first step. Tragically, Kennedy was assassinated at just 46 years old. Had he lived longer and secured re-election, or if his political career had extended for decades, would our world today look different?
Following Khrushchev, Soviet leaders gradually took a less hostile stance toward the West compared to the Stalin era. After decades of economic and political experiments, many in the Soviet Union began to realize that their approach had not been as effective as they had hoped—especially in terms of improving people’s livelihoods. Likewise, the realities of Western society were not entirely what they had initially expected.
In 1984, Gorbachev met with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Afterward, she famously remarked, “I like Gorbachev. We can do business together.” This suggests that ideological shifts were already underway even before Gorbachev formally took power.
Is Smith’s Thinking More Profound Than Most Economists Realize?
The 1980s were a period of significant ideological change, with one of the central debates revolving around the nature of the free market, or so-called capitalism. Even after hundreds of years, humanity has yet to fully resolve this question.
The general consensus is that capitalism offers economic advantages. However, as historian Jerry Muller suggested, Adam Smith’s vision for The Wealth of Nations was not just about making people wealthier—it was about making them better. This perspective is not widely accepted, as Muller specialized in intellectual history rather than economics. But could it be that, precisely because he was not an economist, he had a clearer view of the true depth and breadth of Adam Smith’s ideas—insights that many economists may have overlooked? I will explore this further in the next discussion.
