The Wealth of Nations was intended for Making Men Better, Not Merely Better-off
During the 1980s, the world’s ideological landscape was undergoing significant transformation, and one of the central issues was the true nature of the free market, or what is commonly referred to as capitalism. This is perhaps a question that humanity has been grappling with for centuries and has yet to answer satisfactorily.
Author: GUDORDI | 2024-10-29
《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）
In the previous article, the author discussed how John F. Kennedy proposed what could be described as a “deal of the century”—a grand deal with the Soviet Union aimed at gradually reducing the threat of nuclear war and opening a path toward lasting peace, for the world at large. The goal was to enable both sides to redirect their resources toward pursuits far more meaningful and beneficial than an endless arms race.
The West’s Longstanding Distrust of Russia
A look at history helps explain why Kennedy’s speech was seen as a significant breakthrough by many Russians. For centuries, relations between Russia and the West had been shaped by deep mutual distrust. From the Western perspective, the Russian Tsars were often viewed as ambitious rulers seeking to expand their influence across Europe. From the Russian perspective, however, it was the Western European powers that had repeatedly pursued continental domination, while Russia’s role was primarily defensive.
Many Russians also point out that Russia played a decisive role in defeating both Napoleon and Hitler. Without the immense military effort that tied down and exhausted their forces on the Eastern Front, much of Europe might have fallen under their control.
In any case, although the Western Allies and the Soviet Union fought on the same side during World War II, their partnership was marked by suspicion rather than genuine trust. After Germany’s defeat, the Soviet Union established its influence across Eastern Europe. Moscow argued that this was necessary for security and defense, but many in the West viewed it as evidence of Soviet ambitions to expand its system throughout Europe.
This perception was reinforced by Winston Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech, which is often regarded as marking the beginning of the Cold War. Over the following decade and a half, tensions between the two blocs continued to escalate, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
“I Can Work with This American President”
During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the West routinely portrayed each other as evil forces. Understanding this context helps us appreciate just how groundbreaking Kennedy’s speech was. His approach was notably sincere, balanced, and fair-minded.
According to historical accounts, Kennedy’s speech genuinely impressed Nikita Khrushchev. After hearing it, Khrushchev reportedly made a remark along the lines of: “I can work with this American president.” Regardless of the exact wording, the speech clearly had a significant impact on him. Soon afterward, the full text of Kennedy’s address was published in at least two major Soviet newspapers, Izvestia and Pravda—an almost unimaginable development at the time.
The Soviet Union subsequently made certain concessions regarding the dismantling of missiles. Two weeks later, the United States sent a delegation led by veteran diplomat Averell Harriman to Moscow for negotiations. Following twelve days of talks, the two sides signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, an agreement that prohibited nuclear tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater.
In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union established a direct communications hotline to reduce the risk of misunderstandings escalating into a crisis. In humanity’s efforts to manage nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war, these developments marked at least the beginning of a significant breakthrough.
If Kennedy’s Political Career Had Continued, Would Today’s World Be Different?
According to historical accounts, John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev exchanged a considerable amount of correspondence during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. These letters remain classified for the time being. Perhaps when they are eventually released, we will gain a deeper understanding of Kennedy’s long-term strategy and vision.
In any case, as Kennedy often emphasized, “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” We should not underestimate the significance of that first step. It is poignant to reflect that Kennedy was only 46 years old when he was assassinated. Had that tragedy not occurred, and had he been able to secure a second term—or continue his political career for several more decades—would the world we live in today be different?
Whatever the answer, it appears that after Khrushchev, Soviet leaders generally adopted a more constructive attitude toward the West than had been the case during the Stalin era. There is reason to believe that, after decades of experimentation, many thoughtful figures within the Soviet Union gradually came to recognize that their system was not particularly effective in improving economic well-being and living standards. At the same time, they also discovered that the reality of Western societies differed from many of their earlier assumptions.
According to various accounts, Gorbachev met with Margaret Thatcher in 1984. Following the meeting, Thatcher famously remarked: “I like Gorbachev. We can do business with him.” The statement reflected the growing perception in the West that Gorbachev represented a new kind of Soviet leader—one who was willing to engage in dialogue and pursue meaningful change.
Did Adam Smith’s Ideas Extend Far Beyond What Most Economists Imagine?
From many different perspectives, the world’s ideological landscape was undergoing significant change during the 1980s, and one of the central questions concerned the nature of the free market, or what is commonly called capitalism. It is perhaps a question that humanity has grappled with for centuries without ever arriving at a fully satisfactory answer.
The common view is that capitalism possesses certain advantages, particularly in economic terms. However, according to the observation by Jerry Muller cited at the beginning of this article, Adam Smith’s aspiration in writing The Wealth of Nations was not merely to make people better-off, but to help them become better human beings.
Admittedly, this interpretation is not the mainstream view. Jerry Muller is a scholar of history of thoughts rather than an economist. Yet one might ask whether it is precisely because Muller is not an economist that he is able to appreciate the depth and breadth of Adam Smith’s thinking more clearly. Perhaps the intellectual foundations laid by the father of economics extend far beyond what many economists themselves have traditionally understood or imagined.
The author will return to this question in next article.