It does not take much to lift a country from barbarism to prosperity
What many may not realize is that The Wealth of Nations spans nearly 1,000 pages, in which Smith draws on numerous cases from around the world to repeatedly validate his ideas. A closer look reveals that each sentence is filled with profound wisdom.
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-11-15
Western European countries and Russia have hundreds of years of grievances and resentments, and it is very difficult to eliminate mutual distrust. (Shutterstock)
要使一個國家從最野蠻的狀態提昇到最富裕的境況，其實並不需要太多的東西。持久的和平、簡單寬鬆的稅制，以及公義得以彰顯的制度，就此而已。其他的東西可以透過自然發展過程中自然衍生出來。
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.
──亞當．史密斯（Adam Smith）
在上回，筆者提到全球的意識型態在1980年代時，正醖釀着重要的轉變，而戈爾巴喬夫可能正在籌劃着另一場「世紀大刁」。若這是屬實的話，這可能是全球和平格局出現大轉變的一重要契機。
A Precious Historical Opportunity Fostered by Gorbachev?
Looking back, this moment in history was profoundly significant—not just for Russia, but for the West and the entire world. As mentioned earlier, centuries of grievances and distrust have existed between Western Europe and Russia, making reconciliation extremely difficult. However, it is important to note that the United States and the Soviet Union (or Russia) did not necessarily share the same deep-seated animosity. By the 1980s, their ideological differences had already narrowed considerably. At least in economic terms, Gorbachev was not inherently opposed to the free market; in fact, he was interested in introducing market mechanisms into the Soviet economic system. Given this, it was not entirely inconceivable that the United States and the Soviet Union could have thawed relations, leading to Soviet or Russian integration into the global community and greater cooperation in reducing nuclear threats and maintaining world peace.
Another crucial factor was the Soviet Union’s remarkable restraint during the dramatic transformations in Eastern Europe in 1989. Many were surprised by this, as the Soviet Union had both the capability and precedent to intervene militarily—just as it had done in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in earlier decades. However, records show that Gorbachev consistently opposed military intervention in Eastern Europe, which proved to be a monumental development for those nations. As a result, their independence was achieved with minimal bloodshed, largely through peaceful transitions.
From a purely realpolitik perspective, the Soviet Union’s approach seems almost baffling. Some argue that, at the very least, the Soviet leadership could have exercised some degree of control to ensure a more orderly and managed separation of Eastern European countries. Yet, the Soviet Union chose not to do so—an anomaly that defies traditional geopolitical logic. As a result, some historians refer to this period as “The Enigma of 1989.”
What Was Gorbachev’s Vision?
The full truth of those events remains for future historians to uncover. However, one thing seems clear—Gorbachev’s personal values and beliefs played a decisive role. This raises a crucial question: What exactly was Gorbachev planning at the time? And what kind of opportunity might the world have missed?
Even today, we lack sufficient information to reach a definitive judgment. However, based on Gorbachev’s actions and statements since assuming power in 1985, as well as the broader geopolitical and domestic Soviet context, it is possible to infer his strategic reasoning. Gorbachev may have recognized that the United States had no territorial ambitions against the Soviet Union. If the Soviet economy and standard of living were to improve, drastic reductions in military spending were necessary. By exercising restraint in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev may have hoped to build trust with the West, demonstrating that the Soviet Union had no expansionist intentions. This, in turn, could have led to further arms reductions and potentially even economic cooperation or support from the West to aid Soviet development.
Moreover, if the United States had no plans to attack the Soviet Union and the two nations could collaborate on global stability, allowing Eastern European nations to become independent or neutral while adopting market-driven reforms, this could have provided crucial momentum for the Soviet Union’s own political and economic transformation.
Smith’s Bold Assertion Deserves Serious Consideration
However, we must not underestimate the power of lasting peace. At first glance, the claim at the beginning of this article might seem overly simplistic. But it is crucial to recognize that this idea originates from Adam Smith, a thinker renowned for his meticulous and rigorous approach to economic philosophy. Those who have carefully studied his works will recognize that Smith was deeply committed to validating his arguments through extensive empirical evidence.
What many people may not realize is that The Wealth of Nations is nearly 1,000 pages long, and throughout the book, Smith painstakingly examines a vast array of case studies from around the world to support his conclusions. The economist Joseph Schumpeter once described Smith’s method as “lighting up the mosaic of detail, heating the facts until they glow.”
Smith’s intellectual discipline makes him a highly respected scholar—one who was not prone to making claims lightly. Yet, he made several assertions that were considered bold in his time. Upon closer inspection, however, each of these statements reveals profound wisdom. This is why the idea presented at the start of this article should not be dismissed. I will explore this further in the following discussion.
