American Affairs: Nationalism’s Dividends

Liah Greenfeld:

“Here are some facts about China from the World Bank:

Since initiating market reforms in 1978 . . . China has expe­rienced rapid economic and social development. GDP growth has averaged nearly 10% a year—the fastest sustained expan­sion by a major economy in history—and more than 850 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty. . . . Although China’s GDP growth has gradually slowed since 2012, as needed for a transition to more balanced and sustainable growth, it is still relatively high by current global standards.

There is nothing in the entire history of the world that compares to this Chinese achievement of last forty years, in terms of both the magnitude and rapidity of its impact on the condition of humanity. Between 1990 and 2005, China accounted for more than three-quarters of global poverty reduction. Anyone wishing to make the world better, and to reduce human suffering, should observe, study, and follow the example of the Chinese government.

How was China able to achieve such extraordinary economic success? It did so by encouraging the spread of economic nationalism. ..

Indeed, economic nationalism originally took the form of mer­cantilism, which reigned in England and then Britain throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—remaining dominant until 1776, when Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. By that time, Britain was already the undisputed economic hegemon in whatever it counted as the world. It was this change in its position vis-à-vis its competitors that motivated a change in its economic thinking. Adam Smith suggested a new approach towards competition: free trade inside and out. This was not a matter of principle but of pragmatic consideration for him. Smith was a nationalist (which implied that he viewed the economy as a means to the greater good of national dignity or superiority); his support for the Navigation Acts indicated that he saw nothing wrong with protectionist trade policies so long as they served this purpose. But he was convinced that under the conditions obtaining at the end of the eighteenth cen­tury, the national interest would be better served by free trade. …

For the intrud­ers brought with them nationalism and awakened in Japan the competitive concern for national dignity (which was naturally out­raged by the manner in which the country was bent to a foreign will). The alacrity with which Japan adopted this new, secular, and competitive view of reality is astonishing: it had its nationalist ideol­ogists already by the late 1850s. And because nationalism was pre­sented to them in a “globalizing” economic packaging, Japanese nationalism from the outset was an aggressive economic nationalism with imperial aspirations. Within a generation, the country had reorganized itself on new, nationalist principles. Early in the twenti­eth century, already a formidable military power with a record of victories over China and Russia, it was pressing on the heels of the British, American, German, and French economies. Indeed, the four front-runners complained of being “menaced” and “harassed” by “a powerful stream of Japanese manufactures.” …

But within a matter of years, China will leave all other aspirants to economic superiority far behind, including those who currently enjoy it. It will simply be impossible for any Western power (each weakened by the disaffection of its elite and divided against itself) to overcome more than a billion Chinese, highly motivated and united in their national commitment. Only India might, perhaps, challenge this energetic mass in the future. ….”

I will have to bookmark this site.

I agree with pretty much this entire article. It shows why Southerners need to shrug off our current lethargy and get our act together and start building a 21st century economy that will make us a strong nation again. Instead of being dumb about this and lying to ourselves, we need to recognize that East Asian nations like China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have a massive head start on us primarily because they aren’t burdened by the baggage of dumb conservative and lolbertarian economic theories, not to mention America’s chronic social dysfunction and generally worthless political class.