The Cold War in Asia

When the Qing Dynasty was overthrown and the Republic of China took its place in 1912, the Nationalist Party of Sun Yat-sen had to face several competing forces for control of the country. Among those was a Communist movement, assisted by the Soviet Union. At first, the Communists were but a small threat to the Nationalists. The famous Long March of the Communists in 1934 and 1935 was essentially a series of retreats from the forces of the Republic. During that time, the Communists became a more cohesive unit and began to recognize the leadership potential of Mao Zedong. But when Japan invaded China, starting the Second World War, Nationalists and Communists settled their differences and fought the Japanese. During the years of the war against Japan, the Communist army made many friends for itself across the land. They gained a reputation of strength, courage, and helpfulness. Within four years of the end of World War II, Mao and the Communists had gained control of twenty-one of the twenty-two provinces of China. The Nationalists, now led by Chiang Kai-shek, fled to the twenty-second province, the island of Taiwan. That island had belonged to Japan from 1895 until 1945, when it was returned to China. From 1949 through the present and the foreseeable future, both governments—the People’s Republic of China in twenty-one provinces and the Republic of China in the twenty-second—have insisted that the true China has only one government, that some citizens are in revolt against that government, and that China will one day be reunited under its proper government. Their only difference concerns which of them is the proper government for all of China.

Mao’s success in China was embarrassing to the United States, which had just witnessed the creation of the Iron Curtain in Europe. Opponents of Truman’s administration stood in Congress to ask, “Who lost China?” The United States and its allies resolved to contain communism, to let no more nations fall to the opposition in the Cold War. When Kim Il-sung launched an invasion from North Korea, seeking to unite all of Korea under his Communist government, the United States led an international force, sponsored by the United Nations, to turn back the invasion. At the time, many governments of the Free World assumed that the invasion was sponsored by the Soviets, but they did little to help Kim’s invasion, either militarily or in the United Nations. Instead, as his forces were thrown back across the border by the USA-led forces, Communist China sent thousands of its forces to support North Korea. After several years of fighting, remembered in a famous television show that lasted four times as long as the war it portrayed, a settlement was reached which left the border between North and South Korea where it had been established in 1945.

Meanwhile, Communists were also involved in the French colony of Indochina. The British were relatively successful, after the World Wars, granting freedom to their colonies in Asia and Africa. The French did far less to prepare their overseas colonies for independence. Several groups fought the French in Indochina, including a Communist group led by Ho Chi Minh. After the French army had been embarrassed on the battlefield in Vietnam, they agreed to withdraw and to recognize four nations. They gave independence to Cambodia and Laos, and they also created a North and South Vietnam, divided as Germany and Korea had been divided. One million Vietnamese citizens fled south to escape the Communists led by Ho. These refugees created greater stress on the already weak government in South Vietnam. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy provided military assistance to South Vietnam, which was thrown into greater turmoil by the assassination of its President in November of 1963. To keep the Communists contained, President Johnson had to vastly increase the military presence of the USA in South Vietnam. Since the United States had not supported French and British interests in west Asia in 1956, America’s European allies offered no hope to America in east Asia in the 1960s. By 1968, the American military presence in South Vietnam had grown to half a million soldiers.

President Nixon was elected that year, in part because he had a plan to end the Vietnam War. His plan involved several components. His government negotiated with the North Vietnamese in Paris—first secretly; later in the open. American troops were gradually withdrawn from east Asia as the South Vietnamese Army became better trained to face the communist enemy. Nixon also authorized attacks upon the North Vietnamese where they established military bases and trails in Cambodia and Laos. Most significant, Nixon undermined the North Vietnamese support from their allies in the Soviet Union and in China. Nixon’s historic visit to China in February 1972, and an equally eventful visit to the Soviet Union later that year, contributed to a resolution to the war in Vietnam, while also accomplishing many other objectives of the American President.

For three years, negotiations with North Vietnam remained at a standstill. In 1972, following Nixon’s journeys and seeing the likelihood of his reelection, the North Vietnamese began to negotiate more sincerely. In autumn they had nearly settled their disputes; then the North Vietnamese began to reverse their progress. Nixon ordered bombing of North Vietnam and mining of its harbors at the end of 1972. Such actions had sped negotiating progress earlier in the year, and they worked again. In January 1973, the United States and North Vietnam ended hostilities. American prisoners of war were sent home. Had the terms of the treaty been enforced, South Vietnam would have remained free. But Congress denied funding to Presidents Nixon and Ford for support of the treaty. When North Vietnam saw that it could violate the treaty with impunity, it gathered its strength. In 1975, it boldly invaded and captured South Vietnam, uniting the nation under its Communist government.

Meanwhile, Mao tried to maintain his hold in China by keeping the entire nation in a state of crisis. His Great Leap Forward in the 1950s and his Cultural Revolution in the 1960s devastated China as much as any war could do. President Nixon’s visit helped the rising generation of Chinese leaders to plan for the future. In the 1980s, several years after Mao died, the Chinese government renounced socialism and established a free-market economy. Though they kept the name “Communist” and continued to hold totalitarian control of China, they abandoned the Marxist dream of socialism leading to a Communist paradise. In the 1990s, the Communist government of Vietnam followed the same path.

Free-market economies flourished in east Asia. Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea all prospered during the Cold War. In south Asia, history followed a different course. The people of India had been seeking independence from Britain for decades. When independence was granted after World War II, it came at a cost. India was divided into two nations—two pieces, called Pakistan, where Islam was in the majority; and the large piece in between, called India, where the Hindu religion prevailed. These two governments remained hostile to each other throughout the Cold War. Both flirted with the world powers—the USA and the USSR—while claiming to be unaligned with either side. In 1971, East Pakistan declared independence, making itself the country called Bangladesh.  India supported this move. On this occasion, as on many others, violence between India and Pakistan threatened to break into open war. Since both countries have developed nuclear bombs, war between them is inadvisable.

Because division of countries seemed so successful in Germany, Korea, and India/Pakistan, the British tried the same course of action in west Asia. They granted independence to Israel, a Jewish nation, and to Palestine, a Muslim nation. The Muslim neighbors of Israel immediately went to war, and Israel had to capture portions of Palestine to survive; the rest of Palestine was swallowed by Jordan. The next decade saw violence in west Asia again, including the matter of the Suez Canal. Once again, Israel prevailed against its neighbors. In 1967, the Six-Day War again favored Israel, as it captured land from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt while defending itself from attack. The 1973 war against Israel came closer to destroying the Jewish homeland. President Nixon authorized an airlift of supplies that turned the tide for Israel against its neighbors. This led to an economic crisis for the United States, as Muslim oil-producing nations first boycotted the USA, then sold oil at greatly-increased prices. Israel has survived further violence, and has sought ways to create a home for Muslim Palestinians without allowing them to threaten Israel’s continued survival. (The other option, making the Palestinians voting citizens of Israel, could overthrow the Jewish government at the ballot box.) Many of Israel’s Muslim neighbors have given up on military attacks and have instead tried to negotiate agreements with Israel, generally producing success for both sides.

During the Cold War, both the USSR and the USA viewed violence in west Asia as part of the world-wide struggle between freedom and communism. When the United States supported Israel, the Soviet Union made some friends in the Muslim world, particularly in Syria and Egypt. Other countries, including the Shah’s Iran and the Saud family’s Arabia, were strong friends of the United States. When opposition to the Shah grew in Iran during the 1970s, many American leaders assumed that the Soviet Union was behind the trouble. To their surprise, when the Shah was overthrown, the new government was hostile toward both the USA and the USSR. Meanwhile, after the 1973, President Sadat of Egypt send his Soviet advisors home and welcomed the United States as partners. A Soviet-sponsored government arose in Afghanistan, and the United States helped to equip and train opposition to that government. Once again, the United States assumed that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The Soviets left Afghanistan and eventually lost power over Russia and the other Soviet Republics, but the leaders in Afghanistan did not consider the United States a friend. After the Cold War ended, those same forces the Americans had trained and equipped would engineer the most devastating attack upon the United States since the end of the Civil War. J.

The Cold War, part two

The tensions of the Cold War caused governments in the USA and the USSR—and, often but now always, in their respective allies—to view events in the world entirely through the filters of communism vs. capitalism and totalitarian control vs. freedom. Even internally, the two governments responded to their citizens based upon the rhetoric of Cold War opposition.

Since their governments were totalitarian, the USSR and its allies could be expected to shut down opposition. Citizens were watched, jailed, put on trial, imprisoned, and even executed for speaking against the government and its actions. The Soviet Union sent soldiers and military equipment into Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) to quell opposition and stifle revolutions. The USA warned that it would not tolerate similar interference with the people of Poland when they resisted their government in 1980; still, the Polish armed forces grew suddenly with soldiers who spoke no Polish and wore hastily-made uniforms, using military equipment recently repainted to obscure the identification marks of the USSR.

Communist leanings had been socially acceptable in the United States in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Those same leanings, or a history of such, were no longer tolerated in the 1950s. Government workers, entertainment figures, and other citizens were questioned by Congress about their sympathies toward Communism. Some lives and careers were unfairly maligned by these hearings, but a few traitors were also detected. Government officials (notably, J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI) continued to suspect Communist influence in mass movements of the 1960s, including Civil Rights demonstrations and anti-war protests. For the most part, though, freedom prevailed in the United States. Progress was made in the area of human rights, and government officials continued to respond to the feelings and opinions of American citizens. An air of mutual suspicion continued, however, and its effects are felt down to the present.

In Europe, the allies of the USA reduced their military capacities, having endured the horrors of two World Wars in the twentieth century. Sheltered under the umbrella of NATO, they trusted the Americans to stand up to the Soviets and prevent a military take-over of western Europe. Reduction in military spending allowed western European governments to experiment with non-Marxist forms of socialism, with varying results. These governments also sought greater economic power in the world by combining their resources. Beginning with the economic alliance of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (which was named “Benelux”), the alliance gained more members and became the European Common Market. Assets of the Common Market were greatly strengthened when the United Kingdom joined in 1972. These countries were prepared for an even stronger economic union when the Cold War ended and several nations leaving the Warsaw Pact sought a place in the Common Market. This delayed the implementation of Union for a few years.

A major turning point occurred when the government of Egypt seized the Suez Canal in 1956. Britain and France wanted to intervene militarily to keep European control of the Canal, but the United States demurred, seeing an opportunity to gain friends in the so-called “Third World.” As a result, Britain and France became less involved in other events outside of Europe, which is why the Korean War saw an international alliance battle communism in eastern Asia, but the United States was left on its own to battle communism a decade later in Vietnam.

The label “Third World” was coined in the nineteenth century after the colonies of the western hemisphere—the “New World”—became independent. Colonialism continued in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, and those colonies were called the Third World. During the Cold War, Latin America was added to the perceived Third World, as it became a description of those places where agents of the USA and the USSR openly competed for political control. In Latin America, hostility toward the United States had been growing ever since Napoleon III attempted to establish an empire in Mexico. Occasional military intervention by the United States and major economic control of the region prompted resistance. Communist movements existed in nearly every country of Latin America, where most governments still belonged to caudillos, the wealthy (and generally white-skinned) elite. Fidel Castro led one of the few successful overthrows of an American ally in Latin America during the Cold War, and Cold War tensions involving Cuba brought great trauma to the United States. American foreign policy in the Third World assumed that “the enemy of my friend is my enemy.” Therefore, if a dictator professed allegiance to the United States and its values, the United States supported that dictator against any danger of rebellion.

This same principle was followed in Africa. Following the Second World War, European governments granted independence to their African colonies. The same borders drawn by European governments to establish their colonies were used to designate the borders of the new countries, meaning that many tribes were split among more than one country, and many countries contained portions of tribes who had battled one another for generations. Violence in Africa continued beyond the Cold War and still exists today. But during the Cold War, the United States always responded to violence in Africa in light of professed Cold War loyalties. Even in South Africa, the United States supported a government opposed to civil rights while it spoke about civil rights in Communist countries and even offered increased civil rights to minorities in the USA.

Since the end of the Cold War, democratic governments have been given greater opportunity to arise and thrive in Africa. Tribal rivalries remain a problem, and dictators still tend to seize power over African nations. The biggest tension in Africa today, though, is between Christian and Muslim populations. This difference, fueled by tribal differences, remains a source of conflict among Africans in the twenty-first century.

Still to come: the Cold War in Asia. J.

Defining socialism (and related terms)

I have written twice about socialism without taking the effort to define my terms. That shortcoming needs to be corrected.

Briefly, socialism describes a society in which the means of production are controlled by the government, or the state. This distinguishes socialism from capitalism—in which the means of production are privately owned—and communism—in which the means of production are commonly owned without control from the government or the state. Based on nineteenth century European philosophy and its aftermath, the idea of socialism can be further divided into three categories.

Means of production include any source of wealth and any production of items that are needed and wanted by members of the community. Farms are the primary means of production for most of history. Factories and businesses have become means of production in more recent times. A shoemaker’s shop, a pharmacy, and a railroad are all examples of means of production. If the government owns and operates these means, socialism is present. Mere regulation by the government of these means is not, strictly speaking, socialism (but see further development of this thought below).

Utopian socialism occurs when a group of people establishes a business or a set of businesses within a community and places them under a governing authority. Several small-scale attempts to establish utopian socialism were tried in the nineteenth century. Even some twenty-first century companies retain elements of utopian socialism—when workers are given stock in the company or other ways of receiving a share of the company’s profits, and when workers are invited to take part in the decision-making process of the company’s boards.

In many cases, utopian socialism remained dominated by the owners of the company, leading to the further subjugation of the workers. In the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago, the Lee Wilson & Company plantations of northeast Arkansas, and various other establishments and businesses, the company owners not only built factories and storehouses. They also built homes for the workers, stores where the workers shopped, schools for the children of the workers, and even churches for the workers and their families. Company owners controlled prices charged in the stores and messages delivered in the schools and churches. Company currency was paid to the workers instead of money that could be spent off company property. The detriment to workers is illustrated by the song “Sixteen Tons,” in which a worker sings, “Saint Peter, don’t you call me, ‘cause I can’t go—I owe my soul to the company store.”

Revolutionary socialism sought to prevent that lack of control by overthrowing the company owners and placing control of the companies directly into the government’s hands. A class of capitalist businessmen, politicians, and other leaders was to be attacked and stripped of power so the workers could gain full control of the means of production. The government, it was thought, would run the farms and factories and other businesses more fairly, giving more of the wealth to the workers since it was keeping less of the wealth to itself. Some revolutionary socialists, including Karl Marx, viewed revolutionary socialism as a temporary condition, one that would become communism (see below) as the government withered away, granting more control of the means of production to the workers. Other revolutionary socialists expected the government to remain, to continue to control the means of production, but to treat the workers more kindly than the capitalists had done in earlier times.

Gradual socialism hoped that the government could assume such control over the means of production without a violent uprising by the working class, and without a violent overthrow of businessmen and politicians. Through increasing government regulation, advocates of gradual socialism hoped, the government could strip capitalist businessmen of their control of the means of production, effectively placing that control in the hands of the government. Not all regulation of businesses is done with the goal of gradual socialism; much legislation has intentions that are not at all related to socialism. But proponents of gradual socialism use government regulation as a means to remove control of the means of production from business owners and to give the government full control of the national economy.

Communism differs from socialism in that the workers directly control the means of production without a government interfering with their control or making decisions on their behalf. Karl Marx wrote that revolutionary socialism would be a temporary step on the road to full communism. Because of his theories, revolutionary socialists in Russia, China, Cuba, and other places identified themselves as a Communist Party, holding out the promise that their government would concede control to the workers over time. That never happened in any of those places.

Communism can be practiced by a small group of people who combine their resources to meet all of their needs. The early Christian Church practiced that kind of communism. Wide-scale communism on a national level has never been achieved. When a revolutionary government established control of the means of production, it retained that control unless and until it was overthrown by a second revolution.

Capitalism teaches that control of the means of production must remain in the hands of the investors, who conduct their businesses for their own profit, but who compete to offer the best conditions for both workers and customers. Capitalism was historically expressed by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations. People used to believe that wealth was limited, that one person could gain wealth only if other people lost wealth. Smith demonstrated that labor increases value and wealth is not stagnant. If a person finds a diamond, that person has received wealth. If a person pays a jeweler to cut and shape that diamond, the gem is smaller but much more valuable. Both the finder and the jeweler become more wealthy.

Smith wrote that capitalism thrives when governments do not interfere with the economy. He defended the idea of laissez-faire, or “leave it alone.” Pure capitalism would insist that the government exercise no form of control over the means of production in the national economy. But even Smith understood that some government regulation is good, beneficial, and necessary. The result of a capitalist economy with some government participation is called free market capitalism.

In the free market, the government does regulate the means of production to a certain extent. Pollution of the air, land, and water is limited through regulation. Safety of the products sold to consumers is regulated through inspections. Safety at the workplace and other benefits for the workers are also regulated by the government. Workers and consumers both benefit from some government regulation, while investors continue to benefit from their part in the means of production and the growth of the economy.

In free market capitalism, business owners and investors benefit from competing with each other for workers and for customers. They choose how much to pay their workers and what other benefits to offer their workers. They choose how much to charge for their products, and they also make choices about the quality of their products. All of these choices are shaped by the availability and cost of raw materials, the availability of workers, and the interest of customers in their products. Workers and customers also make choices among the options offered to them. As long as businesses compete for customers and for workers, good jobs continue to be offered, and affordable, good-quality products continue to be bought and sold.

To preserve the free market, governments sometimes act to prohibit or break apart monopolies, trusts, and cartels. Such business practices limit choices for workers and customers by placing control of the means of production into the hands of too few people. Standard Oil and AT&T were divided by the government for the benefit of workers and customers; social media providers may face similar legislation in the near future. The government acts slowly and deliberately when it considers challenging a monopoly in free market capitalism. On the other hand, no agency exists to police the government when it holds control of the means of production in a socialist system. J.

Labor Day

The industrial revolution changed the world. One thousand years ago, Chinese technology created a new and better version of steel. Over the centuries that recipe spread, until it reached the British Isles, where iron and coal were abundant and were near each other, and where transportation by water made it easy to distribute what was manufactured. Labor-saving devices such as mechanical spinners and looms allowed increased production, and what happened in Britain began to happen in other European countries, in North America, and eventually throughout the world.

Capitalism had already begun to develop in medieval Europe. Workers formed guilds which controlled each craft, putting the power of production into the hands of workers. Along with the guilds came financial leagues which led to modern banking and a new financial system. With the industrial revolution came a new form of capitalism. Only those who had access to wealth could buy the new machines. Now workers came into the factories and worked for the investors instead of working at home and controlling their own careers. Following the precepts of capitalism, investors and factory owners paid as little as they could to workers and got as much work out of them as possible, thereby keeping prices low for their customers which allowed them to gain a profit.

Many people realized the problems implicit in the system of capitalism. Even Adam Smith, who wrote the book defining and defending capitalism, explained that workers needed to be treated well to produce a better product—and to be the customers that the factories required. Karl Marx was not the first thinker to attack capitalism, but he offered the most dramatic solution. He complained that the system was rigged to keep the many workers under the control of the few people who had wealth. Government and even religion, he said, always took the side of the wealthy few against the many workers. Marx predicted that the workers would rise in revolt. They would overthrow the wealthy few, along with government and religion, and create a new and fairer system. For a time, the government would own and control the factories and farms on behalf of the people (socialism). After a while the government would wither and die and the people would own the factories and the farms. They would distribute the wealth they produced according to the workers’ needs, and each worker would willingly labor according to his or her ability (communism).

Marx said that the revolution would begin in the countries where the industrial revolution began and would spread as industry had spread. When it had reached the entire world, then the conversion from socialism to communism could happen. Marx did not foresee any way the workers could achieve their goals of proper wages and decent working conditions without violent revolution. He did not foresee any way that capitalism could be preserved.

Marx was wrong. Workers in Europe and North America found ways to organize themselves into unions which could speak to the owners of factories on behalf of all the workers. Christian sensibilities took the side of the workers and implored factory owners to treat them better—fair wages, fewer hours of work, better and safer working conditions. Swayed by Christians and by the growing power of the labor unions, governments began making laws to require the workers in factories to be treated properly. Child labor was gradually abolished, work hours were regulated, and inspectors were sent into factories to guarantee the safety of the workers. Although there were exceptions, generally governments required factory owners to permit their workers to form unions that would negotiate with the owners for the good of the workers. Socialism and communism were not necessary. Capitalism, under limited government regulation, could be preserved, with investors and customers and workers all benefiting from the system.

In the United States we celebrate workers and their contribution to the nation and the world with a holiday called Labor Day. Unlike Memorial Day (which was originally May 30, until it was moved to the last Monday in May), Labor Day has always been celebrated on a Monday, the first Monday in September. Originally that Monday was meant to be a time when workers would parade through the streets of the city to be recognized by their fellow citizens. It was, naturally, an extra day without work for the laborers, a day when they could gather with their families and those of their coworkers in picnics and other festive occasions. Labor Day weekend has become the social end to summer, as Memorial Day weekend is the social beginning of summer.

Every Memorial Day a few people speak out about the importance of recalling the reason for the holiday. Memorial Day is not just about cook-outs and the beginning of summer. On Memorial Day we remember soldiers who lost their lives fighting for their country. I have written such reminders myself. Scolding Americans because we have forgotten the meaning of Labor Day happens far less often. Of course we should be grateful to those workers whose labor improves our lives. We might not go into factories and shake the hands of laborers there, but each of us can mark this Labor Day weekend in some appropriate way. Be kind to the restaurant workers and grocery store workers you encounter. Thank them for doing their jobs. Think of those other laborers who do not get time off for the holiday—police officers, fire fighters, hospital workers, pastors, and all those expected to continue working on a holiday weekend.

Labor Day recognizes workers. It also reminds us of a process—the way labor unions, governments, and Christians concerned about the lives of factory workers combined to assist those workers. Along the way, they rescued capitalism from the danger of revolt. We continue to debate how much regulation is necessary and which laws hinder capitalism excessively. We should debate these things. On Labor Day, though, we also rejoice and are glad for the good things we have because of the work of our neighbors. J.

Bluster and North Korea

Nobody would be worried about missiles fired from North Korea if the Yalta Conference of February 1945 had turned out differently.

The Yalta Conference was the second of three meetings involving the heads of state of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union during World War II. President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Premier Joseph Stalin had met in Tehran, Iran, in 1943. All three also attended the Yalta Conference on the Crimean Peninsula in the Black Sea. The third meeting, held in Potsdam, Germany, also included Stalin, but Roosevelt had died and been replaced by Harry S Truman. Churchill was still alive, but Clement Attlee had displaced Churchill as Prime Minister.

These meetings had two purposes. They helped the allied governments cooperate in their war against the Axis powers, and they also helped those governments plan for the post-war era. For example, as the United States and the United Kingdom planned their D-Day invasion, they were able to persuade Stalin in Tehran to launch an invasion of German-held territory at about the same time to pin German troops on the eastern front. The partition of Germany following the war was also determined at these conferences.

Probably the most important agreement made in Yalta was that each of the allied powers would set up governments in the lands that they captured from the Axis. Aside from eastern Germany, the Soviet Union also formed governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary at the end of the war. Churchill and Roosevelt had insisted that free elections be held-especially in Poland-and Stalin promised that such elections would be held. Instead, all those countries were placed under governments following the Soviet system, and they remained under Communist Party rule until 1989.

Stalin also promised that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan roughly three months after the surrender of Germany. This promise he kept. In the beginning of August, Soviet troops entered Korea and began battling the Japanese forces occupying the country. This Soviet invasion factored into President Truman’s decision to rush the end of the war by dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, although his fear of the loss of life that would be caused by a conventional invasion of Japan was a larger concern. When Japan surrendered, Soviet forces had captured the northern half of Korea, and they invoked the Yalta agreement to create a Soviet-sponsored government there as well. Roosevelt and Churchill had never intended Korea to be divided, but Truman and Attlee were not about to concede all of Korea to the Communists. Korea was split into two countries, and today it remains two countries under separate governments.

North Korea is the only Communist nation to be ruled by a single dynasty. Three generations of the Kim family have ruled North Korea since 1945. In 1950 North Korea invaded South Korea, setting off a three-year war which would later spawn an eleven-year television show called MASH. The United Nations condemned the invasion. Soviet representatives in the UN were absent that day, so they failed to veto the UN’s decision to send troops to support South Korea. (This is generally offered as proof that Kim and North Korea were invading on their own and not under instructions from the Soviet Union.) When the UN forces prevailed against the North Korean army, Chairman Mao sent reinforcements from the Peoples Republic of China, and the war became a stalemate that was settled by treaty in 1953, leaving things much as they had been before 1950.

The division of Korea became an interesting test case for different economic beliefs. With the support of the United States, South Korea built a capitalist economy, while North Korea built a socialist economy inspired by that of the Soviet Union. South Korea has blossomed into an economic power, while North Korea has remained stagnant economically. The government of North Korea has invested heavily in military equipment, including atomic weaponry and missile technology. With little opportunity to boast about anything else, the North Korean government regularly reminds the world of its power. The United States in particular has responded to these reminders with its own reminders of American military power.

I teach history classes. I am more qualified to discuss the past than to predict the future. I can say with confidence, though, that governments like those in North Korea and Cuba are doomed to failure sooner or later. No matter how hard they try, despots can only fool their people for a while. News of what people in other countries possess leads to discontent and a desire for change. At some point the mistakes made at the Yalta Conference will be upended and freedom will prevail, even in North Korea. J.

 

Definitions

As a history teacher, I must define a few words so that the students and I can use them properly in the classroom. I want my students to know to true meaning of words such as “conservative,” “liberal,” “capitalist,” “socialist,” and “communist.” When we all use those words the same way, our conversations are much more productive.

Conservatives want to conserve things. They want to keep things the way they are. A conservative is likely to say, “If it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it.” Liberals want to change things. They don’t think things are good enough, and so they want to fix what is broken. A liberal is likely to say, “We can make it better.”

Actually, conservative and liberal are two words that cover some territory on a broad spectrum. A conservative wants to keep things the way they are, but a reactionary wants to change things back to the way they used to be. A liberal wants to improve the system, but a radical wants to destroy the system and replace it with a new system. Moderates are between conservatives and liberals. They want to change some things, but they want other things to stay the same. Convinced conservatives and convinced liberals think of moderates as weak and indecisive. They find it hard to fathom why anyone would want to remain in the middle between two choices. Yet political opinions are generally shaped like a bell curve. I suspect more people are moderate than are either conservative or liberal.

People sometimes change their minds, becoming more conservative or more liberal because of different experiences and new perspectives. Ideas can also change, generally from liberal to conservative. A new idea is going to be liberal at first. To adopt a new idea is to want to change. Two hundred years later, that idea has become old. Conservatives want to keep that idea, not to change it; but liberals might reject that idea that used to be liberal, because they think things can be better.

Limiting the power of government was once a liberal idea. Now it is a conservative idea. Defending human rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, was once a liberal idea. Now it is a conservative idea. Abolishing slavery was once a liberal idea. Allowing women to vote was once a liberal idea. Even capitalism was once a liberal idea. Once an idea has been around for a while and people have gotten used to it, the idea is now a conservative idea.

Capitalism has its origin in the High Middle Ages of Europe. As an economic idea, though, it was not expressed clearly until the late eighteenth century. When people thought at all about economics, they assumed that a limited amount of value exists in the world. For one person to gain wealth, someone somewhere would have to lose wealth. Nations competed for limited forms of wealth, such as precious metals. Explorers claimed newly-discovered lands for European governments, believing that they had to compete to see who would be wealthiest and strongest and safest. Adam Smith was one of the first writers to show that value in the world can increase, benefiting all people. A diamond found in a mine has value, but after a jeweler has spent hours cutting and polishing that diamond, the gem is more valuable, even though it is smaller. Wool sheared from a sheep has value. After the carder and spinner and weaver and fuller and tailor have worked with that wool to produce garments, the wool is far more valuable, even though much of it has been lost in the process.

Liberals at that time, believing in limited government, also believed that the government should be uninvolved in the national economy. They were convinced that the economy would regulate itself and would become stronger, benefiting all people, if the government would just get out of the way and let things happen. Private owners would be motivated to do their best to succeed with their property. They wanted customers to buy their products. Some would try to improve the quality of their products to attract customers, while others would try to cut costs to attract customers. Those seeking quality would pay their workers more to attract the better workers; but those who tried to cut costs might not need to pay workers as much, since their expenses would be smaller. Competition would waver between the higher quality and the lower cost, value would increase, and everyone would benefit. Liberal capitalists did not see any way that the government could help that process other than by staying out of the way.

Unregulated capitalists had critics by the middle of the nineteenth century. Capitalists hired children to work in their factories; those children worked from before sunrise until after sunset, labored in dark and dangerous conditions, and brought home less money than an adult would have expected for the same work. Liberals thought that conditions could be better. Some formed utopian communities, but others looked to the government to take over the factories and fix the problem. They figured that if the government owned the factories, they would improve working conditions, pay better wages, produce quality products, and sell those products for less, since the government would not be seeking to make a profit. Radicals (including Marx and Engels) expected the workers to rise in revolt, take over the factories, entrust them to the government for a time, and eventually replace the government with a world-wide utopian community in which each person would work for all and each would receive what he or she needed from all.

“Capitalism,” then, is defined as private ownership of the means of creating value, whether farms, factories, oil wells and refineries, or hospitals and medical clinics. “Socialism” is defined as government ownership of the same means of creating value. “Communism” is defined as shared ownership of these means without government control.

These definitions became confused when the Bolshevik Party in Russia changed its name to the Communist Party. They based this name on their promise of communism in the future, even though they named the country which they ruled the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For seventy years the Communist Party ruled the USSR, but the country remained socialist; it never became communist.

During the Cold War, Americans spoke of the struggle between communists and the free world. Other countries were ruled by Communist parties, but all of those countries were socialist. Moreover, all those governments were totalitarian, controlling the lives of citizens by controlling elections, education, communication, and every workplace, as well as law enforcement. It was a crime to disagree with the government. When citizens protested their governments, they were arrested or killed. People voted with their feet when they had their chance. Between three and four million Germans left East Germany to live in West Germany before the Berlin Wall was built; not many left West Germany to live in East Germany. When Vietnam was divided into a communist North Vietnam and a noncommunist South Vietnam, one million people traveled from North to South. Only ninety thousand traveled the opposite direction. When Fidel Castro said in 1980 that anyone who wanted to leave Cuba was free to go, 125,000 gathered at the port of Mariel waiting for transportation to the United States. That many Americans have not tried to escape to Cuba in the entire fifty-five years that Castro’s Communist Party has ruled Cuba.

Small groups of people have experimented with communism. Even the early Christians were communist, according to Acts 4:32. No country has ever been communist, and no country ever will be communist, because governments are not good at surrendering their power to the people. Socialism has been tried at various times in various places with various levels of satisfaction among the citizens.

If unregulated capitalism was so bad, why did the workers of the industrialized nations not rise in revolt as Marx and Engels predicted? Marx and Engels did not envision regulated capitalism, in which the governments make laws about how farms and factories will operate, even though the government does not claim ownership of the farms and factories. Laws restricted child labor and eventually placed limits on the number of hours any worker could work. Laws allowed inspectors into factories to ensure that the factories were safe for workers and that their products were safe for customers to use. Laws forced capitalists to allow their workers to gather into labor unions which could then represent the workers and negotiate with the business owners. Capitalism survived and thrived because of its compromise with regulation. By 1988 it was easy to compare East Germany to West Germany, North Korea to South Korea, China and Vietnam to Japan and Singapore and Taiwan. In every comparison, it was easy to see that regulated capitalism produced a better life for citizens than totalitarian socialism.

Yet in regulated capitalism citizens often disagree with one another about the amount of regulation that is ideal. This conversation is part of an idea that has been called “the social contract.” On another day, I will write about that contract and what it means for people living under regulated capitalism. This post is too long already. J.