Tuesday, September 15, 2009

[Natural Order] Communism was unavoidable... and of John Maynard Keynes

I just came across the perfect phrase to describe how I view the stage where Sinic countries viewed Communism early on in the twentieth century.

Thus the extraordinary occurrences of the past two years in Russia, that vast upheaval of Society, which has overturned what seemed most stable—religion, the basis of property, the ownership of land, as well as forms of government and the hierarchy of classes—may owe more to the deep influences of expanding numbers than to Lenin or to Nicholas; and the disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy (of The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes).
For at that time, it was problems, such as the rapid growth of population and the diminishing ability of states in the Sinic Orbit to be functioning governments, that bankrupted the credibility of old and past institutions. For Korea, look at none other than the Donghak Movement, which led to none other than the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). Now, consider that Western (U.S.) support for those that had been either colonial colloborators or participants in these past
insitutions made democratic or a market economy incredibly unpopular.

But, what makes East Asia different is that Communist leaders in this part of the region were first and foremost, popular national heroes, who came to identify with Communism. This was more or less a result of the just mentioned logic and by the U.S. decision to support colonial colloborators or participants of past institutions (more or less). Though, the communism is the future thing played its role too. You see, while I'm not exactly writing part IV in this installment yet, I'm setting the argument up for how economic development, or these so called "miracles" in East Asia seem to keep happening over and over again.

Also, it has been pointed out that Mongolia is a state that does not enjoy economic development, which is geographically positioned in Northeast Asia (roughly). However, I would like to say that Mongolia was and has never been a state with Confucian institutions and I believe it is either Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy or Paul Kennedy in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers, who mentions that it is precisely those civilizations that adopted certain parts of Chinese civilization that were the ones that survived intact and independent. I would argue that Mongolia is not and has not been a state with Confucian institutions.

This is another installment in this natural order argument. Perhaps, it could become part of a lengthy paper one day... Earlier I wrote:

No comments:

Post a Comment