I just happened upon a very interesting and fitting article, “The ‘Mystery’ of the Soviet Collapse”, written by Leon Aron in the "Journal of Democracy". He reminds us that we are approaching the fifteen anniversary of this extraordinary event. An article like this is grist for my Mill.
As you may know, my Mill is the study of liberal democracy's ascendancy and the collapse of communism. The name of this Mill is “The Triumph of Liberal Democracy”. However, to understand this triumph, this ascendancy, I've had to discover and understand why communism collapsed. China is one of the few countries that still clings to communism as a central governance but even there its influence is receding. Aron’s article is a nice welcomed opportunity for me to expound on the subject.
Aron’s article mentions the failure of many Sovietontogists to anticipate or explain the death of Soviet communism. They couldn’t understand that such a revolution had occurred without their prior knowledge. He mentioned a 1993 article in “The National Interest” (the magazine that also published Fukuyama's end of history thesis) entitled “The Strange Death of Soviet Communism”. I haven’t read the article but I understand it mentioned a major reason for its death as economic stagnation. However, Aron did not mention economics as a a major possible cause for the Soviet/communist collapse. In fact, he wrote that the economic condition there failed to account for it, even though it appeared to be the chief cause of it.
I concluded some time ago why communism collapsed. The cause is convoluted, but no mystery. Ultimately, it was the lack of economic renewal and reform that did communism in. The lack of political renewal/reform was also a key factor. Renewal of any kind was something the Soviet/communist state was inherently incapable of, chiefly because of its archaic and static ways in state control and central planning. It is for this reason that China, albeit slowly, also is beginning to shed its communist ways.
There are many factors why communism collapsed, but ultimately it was economic. Some have attributed Reagan’s U.S. military build up in the 80s as the chief cause for the Soviet/communism collapse. However, this also is an example of the economy's reach, because it shows that the Soviets did not have the economic resources to compete with America’s military buildup. They did not have the money to pay for new military equipment since they were virtually bankrupt. They also lacked the science and technology required to achieve military parity with the U.S. This lack also points to the ultimacy of economics because it is from good economic stewardship that the Soviets could have afforded the science and technology needed to keep up with the Americans. The type of economics produced under communism was so inferior to that produced under liberal democracy that it is no wonder their failure to muster the finances needed to keep up. Because of the nature of the Soviet/communist economics - the lack of competition and free markets, the Soviet Empire ultimately collapse because of its own economic ineptness, because it didn’t know or follow the economic imperatives of regeneration and renewal. So instead of being the chief reason for the collapse, the Reagan administration’s military buildup really was one final straw that broke the 'camels' back. Without that straw the Empire may have clung to power a little longer but inevitably it still would have collapsed of its own economic incompetence.
Some think Pope John Paul II was responsible for the Soviet/communism collapse. He was a Pope from a communist country, Poland. This was a kin to putting a fox in a chicken coop. This Pope was seen as a threat to communist world because of the Church’s ingrained anti-communism sentiment. This Pope embolden and gave strength to the Polish people to organize and challenge communism’s authority, a challenge that spread to other communist countries. In a sense The Church and the Pope were taking advantage of a growing discontent. The Pope’s threat to communism was taken so seriously that the Soviets tried to kill him. To my way of thinking this Pope’s tenure reflected and paralleled communism’s decline. In hindsight it appears that communism was on the wane when the Pope was elected in 1979. In sensing this decline perhaps The Church, with this Pope, saw the opportunity to once and for all seriously challenge this authority it always found threatening to its religion. However, I think the Pope, like Reagan, rather than being an instigator or a major cause of the Soviet/communism collapse, really was just another straw that broke the 'camels' back.
It is said that humans can’t live by economics alone. It also needs a spiritualism. The Pope didn’t represent or have an economic connection. Instead, he offered and represented a spiritual renewal. That is one reason for his influence in undermining the Soviet/communist regime, because he offered a spiritual renewal where none existed. This inability to spiritually renew made the Soviets and communism vulnerable to the Pope’s “legions”. However, in the final analysis there is a connection because economic renewal does rely on a kind of spiritual renewal. Perhaps that is where the real mystery lies, in understanding that connection.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Liberal democracy as number one
Since he first introduced the subject in his 1989 essay, "The End Of History", Francis Fukuyama has unwaveringly claimed that liberal democracy is today and in the future the only alternative form of government for the world. He came to this conclusion after studying the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism, up until then the only competition and alternative to liberal democracy. He said this climax represented the end point of humankind's ideological evolution, an evolution to determine how humankind should ultimately govern itself. Fukuyama felt this extraordinary event required an equally extraordinary explanation, hence his end of history analogy. In a sense it was the end of a history. Not only had liberal democracy triumphed over Communism but it had triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. He viewed this outcome as historically determined, having come as a result of a human realization and through the empirical process of elimination.
Why didn’t Fukuyama call this final form of government just plain Democracy instead of using the dual term liberal democracy to describe it? After all, that is what it was known as when it was competing and dueling with Communism for 70 years. I thought Democracy was democracy, no matter its composition. By using the split terminology to describe this end point in human governance, Fukuyama introduced some things that need better explaining.
Fukuyama said that “there are two separate motors driving the historical process”. The first motor is economic and the second is what Hegel called humankind’s struggle for freedom and recognition. They are first principles, hence their saliency. Instead of calling the economic motor capitalism, after the most successful and predominant economic system in the world, he called it liberal. He used liberal in its classic sense. Classic liberalism is the origins of capitalism. As he explained, he used liberal instead of capitalism because capitalism had acquired a pejorative connotation. Nevertheless, they both mean free market principles. Democracy is the name of the second motor because democracy is the only means of addressing and satisfying the basic human id, the struggle for freedom and recognition. He linked these two motors because he realized that neither capitalism nor democracy could on their own satisfy the human condition or fulfill the needs and aspirations of the modern world, whether it be in economics or in the struggle, but together they can.
I had wondered how capitalism and democracy fitted together. Some think that democracy and capitalism are opposing, contradictory systems. However, after some thought I realized that their closeness in western governance has meant and is due to the fact that neither institution can exist without the other in the long run. Their linking together is what has made western governance successful and superior to Communism. Fukuyama understood this. I think he also understood the dualistic nature of the world and its essentialness, hence his understanding the need of two separate motors for a sustaining, meaningful governance. He sensed that the modern world’s needs and aspirations can only be met with two such institutions meshing together. I was thinking the same when I thought that democracy and capitalism could not exist without each other. I also felt Communism collapsed because it lacked such a dualistic nature like that of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy encompasses two interest, private and public, making for a hearty, engaging and active governance. Bifurcation in governance, like that in liberal/democracy or capitalism/democracy, is essential because it affords a feedback system that keeps a governance vital and active, Communism obviously lacked this quality in its single mindedness and composition.
Whether he used the term liberal or capitalism, by joining it with democracy he accredited the idea in me that capitalism and democracy constituted one system, that neither can function well or properly without the other. I don't think he was aware of the implication he made at the time, that good governance requires two separate aspect of itself. Though he didn't say it, I think he believes this, as I do.
The Russian philosopher Berdyeav was astutely aware that a governing system needs a dualistic nature, a bifurcation of authority, to be credible and govern legitimately. He became aware of this as he watched Communism develop under Lenin. Communism was solely base on one theory, that of total state control, without opposition. He instinctively knew that if a government was structured thusly, on one theory, it would lead to totalitarian. He was right because Communism was a totalitarian regime and in time, as we know, a defunct one for it. Democracy and capitalism may have been just as dangerous on there own, without a challenging partner.
Niall Ferguson begged the question, as though suspicious of Fukuyama's claim, "Are capitalism and democracy the 'double helix' of the modern world?". I wondered the same thing. I did imagine that they formed something like the two strands of a governing DNA. I am glad, though, he posed the question first because as a respected scholar he gave the idea gravitus, more than I could have done. I think Ferguson believed they formed a special relationship but couldn’t quite accept the idea that they constitute the final form of human governance as Fukuyama and I believe. However, Ferguson inadvertently implied something profound, that the modern world might not be possible without such a DNA. I agree. If the world was not as advanced as it is today perhaps, then, such a DNA wouldn’t be necessary. I think the pace of this world has made such a partnership/DNA necessary. Prior to this, a DNA has never existed in human governance, either because it wasn’t yet needed or it hadn't yet been realized. The modern world has necessitated such a double helix in human governance for its survive and continue.
As I stated earlier, at first I didn't know what to make of the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Then, I thought, capitalism was an arm of Democracy. Then, because of their close ties, I came to the conclusion that neither one could exist without the other. I realized, with the helpful arguments from Fukuyama and Ferguson, they are two separate branches of the same system. That is why Ferguson's DNA idea appealed to me so much. I was thinking, if all other organic systems in nature require a DNA to keep them healthy and alive, why wouldn't this also apply to human governance. Prior to liberal democracy there had never been a DNA in human governance. Is it that one had to evolve first and then could only emerge under the right circumstances?
Why didn’t Fukuyama call this final form of government just plain Democracy instead of using the dual term liberal democracy to describe it? After all, that is what it was known as when it was competing and dueling with Communism for 70 years. I thought Democracy was democracy, no matter its composition. By using the split terminology to describe this end point in human governance, Fukuyama introduced some things that need better explaining.
Fukuyama said that “there are two separate motors driving the historical process”. The first motor is economic and the second is what Hegel called humankind’s struggle for freedom and recognition. They are first principles, hence their saliency. Instead of calling the economic motor capitalism, after the most successful and predominant economic system in the world, he called it liberal. He used liberal in its classic sense. Classic liberalism is the origins of capitalism. As he explained, he used liberal instead of capitalism because capitalism had acquired a pejorative connotation. Nevertheless, they both mean free market principles. Democracy is the name of the second motor because democracy is the only means of addressing and satisfying the basic human id, the struggle for freedom and recognition. He linked these two motors because he realized that neither capitalism nor democracy could on their own satisfy the human condition or fulfill the needs and aspirations of the modern world, whether it be in economics or in the struggle, but together they can.
I had wondered how capitalism and democracy fitted together. Some think that democracy and capitalism are opposing, contradictory systems. However, after some thought I realized that their closeness in western governance has meant and is due to the fact that neither institution can exist without the other in the long run. Their linking together is what has made western governance successful and superior to Communism. Fukuyama understood this. I think he also understood the dualistic nature of the world and its essentialness, hence his understanding the need of two separate motors for a sustaining, meaningful governance. He sensed that the modern world’s needs and aspirations can only be met with two such institutions meshing together. I was thinking the same when I thought that democracy and capitalism could not exist without each other. I also felt Communism collapsed because it lacked such a dualistic nature like that of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy encompasses two interest, private and public, making for a hearty, engaging and active governance. Bifurcation in governance, like that in liberal/democracy or capitalism/democracy, is essential because it affords a feedback system that keeps a governance vital and active, Communism obviously lacked this quality in its single mindedness and composition.
Whether he used the term liberal or capitalism, by joining it with democracy he accredited the idea in me that capitalism and democracy constituted one system, that neither can function well or properly without the other. I don't think he was aware of the implication he made at the time, that good governance requires two separate aspect of itself. Though he didn't say it, I think he believes this, as I do.
The Russian philosopher Berdyeav was astutely aware that a governing system needs a dualistic nature, a bifurcation of authority, to be credible and govern legitimately. He became aware of this as he watched Communism develop under Lenin. Communism was solely base on one theory, that of total state control, without opposition. He instinctively knew that if a government was structured thusly, on one theory, it would lead to totalitarian. He was right because Communism was a totalitarian regime and in time, as we know, a defunct one for it. Democracy and capitalism may have been just as dangerous on there own, without a challenging partner.
Niall Ferguson begged the question, as though suspicious of Fukuyama's claim, "Are capitalism and democracy the 'double helix' of the modern world?". I wondered the same thing. I did imagine that they formed something like the two strands of a governing DNA. I am glad, though, he posed the question first because as a respected scholar he gave the idea gravitus, more than I could have done. I think Ferguson believed they formed a special relationship but couldn’t quite accept the idea that they constitute the final form of human governance as Fukuyama and I believe. However, Ferguson inadvertently implied something profound, that the modern world might not be possible without such a DNA. I agree. If the world was not as advanced as it is today perhaps, then, such a DNA wouldn’t be necessary. I think the pace of this world has made such a partnership/DNA necessary. Prior to this, a DNA has never existed in human governance, either because it wasn’t yet needed or it hadn't yet been realized. The modern world has necessitated such a double helix in human governance for its survive and continue.
As I stated earlier, at first I didn't know what to make of the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Then, I thought, capitalism was an arm of Democracy. Then, because of their close ties, I came to the conclusion that neither one could exist without the other. I realized, with the helpful arguments from Fukuyama and Ferguson, they are two separate branches of the same system. That is why Ferguson's DNA idea appealed to me so much. I was thinking, if all other organic systems in nature require a DNA to keep them healthy and alive, why wouldn't this also apply to human governance. Prior to liberal democracy there had never been a DNA in human governance. Is it that one had to evolve first and then could only emerge under the right circumstances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)