A Missed Opportunity of Our Time?
Could Gorbachev have been planning another “Century Movement”, aiming to steer the Soviet Union toward cooperation with the United States and the West in pursuit of world peace?
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-11-06
Could Gorbachev be planning another “big deal of the century”? (Shutterstock)
假如一個社會大多數人民都處於貧困和痛苦的境況中，它便無法生氣勃勃地發展和得到快樂。
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.──亞當·史密斯（Adam Smith）
在上回，筆者提到一甚為獨特和沒太多人認識的爵利穆勒（Jerry Muller）觀點，就是《國富論》的寄望是讓人們可變得更好，而不是僅僅變得富有。對不少人來說，這觀點一時間不易接受，蓋不少人的印象，史密斯是經濟學之父，而經濟學主張的只是經濟效率，認為私人企業自私自利地追求利潤，是天經地義的。
Adam Smith: More Than Just an Ethical Philosopher
Most economics textbooks and media portray Adam Smith primarily as an ethical philosopher. While this perception is widespread, it does not necessarily reflect the full depth of his thinking. The passage quoted at the beginning of this article suggests that Smith’s views were likely far more nuanced and profound than many realize.
In any case, Smith was, first and foremost, an ethical philosopher—even when writing The Wealth of Nations. He was also remarkably fortunate. His first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, gained him instant fame. Soon after, wealthy aristocrats invited him to tutor their sons and accompany them on a study tour across Europe. Though the tour was cut short due to unforeseen circumstances, Smith’s noble patron honored their agreement and granted him a lifelong pension, allowing him to live comfortably and focus entirely on his intellectual pursuits.
Despite his wealth, Smith led a life of quiet generosity. Since he had no children, his nephew expected to inherit a considerable fortune. However, he was surprised to find that Smith had left behind far less than anticipated. The reason? Smith had secretly donated most of his wealth during his lifetime, likely aiming to assist impoverished families and those in need. The full extent of his charitable contributions only became widely known after his death.
Many books and media portray Smith as a defender of capitalism and self-interest, yet his actions tell a different story—don’t they?
One of Smith’s Motivations: Alleviating Poverty
According to scholars such as James Otteson, Adam Smith was deeply compassionate, and one of his key motivations for writing The Wealth of Nations may have been his belief that the free market was the most effective way to lift large numbers of people out of poverty. Interestingly, some researchers have compared the lives of Smith and Karl Marx, concluding that, in terms of genuine concern and sympathy for the working class and the poor, Smith was no less compassionate than Marx.
Despite Marx’s profound influence on human society, most people seem to know little about his personal life—how he treated his friends, children, and relatives. This has led me to an intriguing thought: If humanity had gained a deeper understanding of both Smith’s and Marx’s lives and actions, could the ideological confrontations of the past century have been shorter and less costly?
What Was Gorbachev Planning Back Then?
By the 1980s, global ideology was undergoing a significant transformation, with one of the main driving forces emerging from within the Soviet Union itself. After decades of experimentation, many knowledgeable figures in the USSR gradually realized that their approach was not as effective—at least in terms of improving people’s livelihoods and the economy.
Gorbachev, born in 1931, was 31 years old when the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted and had already risen to a mid-level position within the Soviet Communist Party. Notably, Khrushchev’s unprecedented decision to publish Kennedy’s 1963 peace strategy speech in full in Izvestia and Pravda may have sparked internal debate in the Soviet Union about what paths were possible.
However, while Gorbachev strongly advocated for open reform, he never abandoned socialism. Records show that he and Margaret Thatcher had numerous heated debates, with neither willing to concede their stance, yet both ultimately accepted and respected each other’s differing views. There is no doubt that Gorbachev’s leadership style and vision were unlike those of his predecessors. His enthusiasm for arms reduction and his willingness to ease the Soviet Union’s military stance toward the West took President Reagan and other Western leaders by surprise.
This raises an important question: What was Gorbachev really planning at the time?
A Missed Opportunity?
This remains a historical mystery, as many crucial documents have yet to be declassified. However, one possible scenario is that Gorbachev was planning another “Century Campaign”—a strategic effort to position the Soviet Union as a cooperative partner with the United States and the West in achieving global peace. By dispelling Western fears that the Soviet Union sought to “liberate” the world, he may have aimed to justify significant cuts to military spending, allowing the Soviet Union to redirect its focus toward economic development, improving livelihoods, and advancing political reforms.
If this was indeed his vision, it represented a major opportunity to reshape the global peace landscape. Unfortunately, this ambitious transformation never materialized. The subsequent course of events not only marked the loss of a historic opportunity but also exposed deeper issues within the global political and economic order. I will explore these further in the next discussion.
