Raising a Nation from Poverty to Prosperity Requires Very Little else..
What many people may not realize is that The Wealth of Nations is a work of nearly one thousand pages. Throughout the book, Adam Smith draws upon numerous examples from different parts of the world to repeatedly test and support his arguments.
Upon closer examination, each of his observations contains a remarkable depth of insight and wisdom.
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-11-15
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 brought about by the natural course of things..……”
──Adam Smith
In the previous article, the author noted that global ideologies were undergoing an important transformation during the 1980s, and that Mikhail Gorbachev may have been preparing another “deal of the century.” If this interpretation is correct, it could have represented a significant opportunity for a major shift in the global landscape of peace and international relations.
A Precious Historical Opportunity Created by Gorbachev?
Looking back today, this opportunity was extremely important and valuable not only for Russia and the West, but also for the world as a whole. As the author has previously noted, Western Europe and Russia share centuries of rivalry, conflict, and mutual suspicion, making it very difficult to build trust between them.
It is worth noting, however, that the United States and the Soviet Union—or later Russia—did not have the same deep historical grievances. By the 1980s, their ideological differences had already narrowed considerably. At least in economic terms, Mikhail Gorbachev did not appear to be strongly opposed to free markets. On the contrary, he seemed interested in introducing market forces into the Soviet economic system.
As a result, a thaw in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, followed by the gradual integration of the Soviet Union or Russia into the international community, along with cooperation on reducing the threat of nuclear war and promoting global peace, was not entirely beyond imagination.
Another important point is that the Soviet Union displayed remarkable restraint toward the dramatic political changes that swept Eastern Europe in 1989. This surprised many observers because the Soviet Union clearly had the military capability to suppress these movements. In fact, few would have been shocked had it done so, given its previous interventions in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
Historical accounts suggest that Gorbachev consistently opposed sending troops into Eastern Europe. For the countries of the region, this was an enormous blessing. It allowed them to achieve independence with relatively little bloodshed and made the transition largely peaceful.
However, from the perspective of national interest and power politics, the Soviet Union’s behavior was difficult to explain. Some argue that, according to the logic of realpolitik, Moscow should at least have used its influence to ensure that Eastern Europe’s separation from Soviet control occurred in a more orderly and controlled manner. Yet the Soviet leadership chose not to do so. This decision is difficult to explain through traditional power-politics reasoning alone, leading some historians to describe the situation as “The Enigma of 1989.”
What Was Gorbachev Really Thinking?
The true nature of these events will likely remain a subject for historians to investigate for years to come. Nevertheless, it is clear that Gorbachev’s personal values and beliefs played a crucial role, which raises an important question: What exactly was Gorbachev trying to achieve, and what opportunity did humanity ultimately miss?
We probably still lack sufficient evidence to answer this definitively. However, judging from Gorbachev’s actions and statements after taking power in 1985, as well as the international and domestic circumstances facing the Soviet Union, he may have concluded that the United States had no territorial ambitions toward the Soviet Union.
If the Soviet Union wanted meaningful improvements in economic growth and living standards, it needed to reduce its enormous military expenditures. By showing restraint toward Eastern Europe, Gorbachev may have hoped to earn the trust of the United States and Western nations while demonstrating that the Soviet Union had no intention of dominating all of Europe. This, in turn, could have paved the way for lower military spending, increased cooperation, and perhaps even Western assistance in Soviet economic development.
At the same time, if the United States had no intention of invading the Soviet Union, and if both superpowers could cooperate in maintaining world peace, then allowing Eastern European countries to become independent or semi-independent, politically neutral states with market-based economies might have provided fresh ideas and momentum for political and economic reform within the Soviet Union itself.
Adam Smith's Bold Assertion Should Not Be Dismissed
Regardless of how one interprets these events, we should not underestimate the power that can emerge from lasting peace.
At first glance, the quotation cited at the beginning of this article may seem almost unbelievably simple. Yet it is important to remember that the statement came from Adam Smith. Anyone who has carefully read his work would likely agree that he was a scholar who held himself to exceptionally high standards and made great efforts to verify his ideas through evidence and observation.
What many people do not realize is that The Wealth of Nations is nearly one thousand pages long. Throughout the book, Smith repeatedly tested his arguments using examples drawn from different countries and historical experiences around the world.
The economist Joseph Schumpeter once remarked that Smith seemed to be “lighting up every detail of the mosaic, heating the facts until they glow.” This observation captures Smith’s method of carefully examining evidence from multiple angles before reaching conclusions.
From an academic standpoint, Smith was a deeply admirable scholar. He did not make judgments lightly, yet he occasionally advanced propositions that many considered remarkably bold. Upon closer examination, however, each of these statements contains profound insight and wisdom.
For that reason, the author argues that the quotation presented at the beginning of this article should not be dismissed lightly.