Chapter 109 Chapter 19 Towards a New Millennium 5

5 The Soviet system collapsed, and the immediate reaction of Western commentators was that it confirmed the permanent victory of capitalism and liberal democracy.But between capitalism and liberal democracy, the difference between the two concepts is often confused by some superficial observers of the world in North America.It is true that the constitution of capitalism was not at its best at the close of the short twentieth century; but Soviet-style communism was undoubtedly incapacitated.But on the other hand, the outlook for liberal democracy is not comparable to that of capitalism, and no serious observer in the early 1990s viewed it with the same optimism.The best hope can only be predicted with some confidence: in reality, all countries in the world (perhaps excluding those countries inspired by the gods and insisting on the fundamentalist line) will continue to express their full support for democracy, hold some form of elections and tolerating objections that are sometimes purely theoretical.At the same time, the facades were painted vigorously, adding their own decorations to the meaning of liberal democracy.

The biggest symptom of the current political situation is actually the political instability in various countries.In the vast majority of countries, the ability of existing regimes to survive the next 10 or 15 years is far from certain at best.Even countries with comparatively stable systems of government and regime transitions, such as Canada, Belgium, or Spain, will be able to maintain their single-state status in the next ten or fifteen years, which is a big question mark.The nature and form of its future successor regimes - if there were any - are therefore uncertain.To put it simply, it is difficult for "futurology" to play a role in the science of politics.

Across the global political landscape, however, several features stand out.One, as already pointed out, is the decline of the national sovereign state.The nation-state has been the main political institution since the Age of Reason. It was established, on the one hand, through the state’s monopoly of public power and law, and on the other hand, because it is also the venue for the effective exercise of political action for the majority.The decline of nation-state status comes from two factors.As far as the first aspect is concerned, its power function is being rapidly ceded to various supranational organizations.On the other hand, due to the disintegration of large countries and empires one after another, there are many small countries, and they lack the ability to defend themselves in the chaotic international war.Within national borders, countries are also gradually losing their traditional monopoly power over state affairs. The rise of private security and express delivery services just proves that affairs that were generally in charge of state departments are now falling into the hands of the people.

These developments, however, do not render the state redundant or ineffective.In fact, in some respects, with the help of technology, the state's ability to supervise and control individuals has been strengthened.Because all financial and administrative matters, large and small money in and out (except for small cash transactions), may be faithfully recorded by computers; and all communication conversations (except for outdoor face-to-face conversations) may also be intercepted and recorded.But despite this, the situation in the country has changed.Originally, from the 18th century to the second half of the 20th century, the jurisdiction, power, and functions of nation-states continued to expand.This is the inevitable main feature of "modernization".Regardless of the nature of individual governments—liberal, conservative, social democratic, fascist, or communist—at the height of modernization, almost all aspects of the life of a "modern" citizen are determined by what the government "does" or "does." Not for "comprehensive manipulation (except when the two countries are in conflict, the situation is beyond the unilateral control of the government of the country).Even the shocks caused by global forces, such as the rise and fall of the world economy, reach the people through the filtering of government decisions and institutions.By the end of the century, however, the nation-state was being forced to go on the defensive, confronting a world economy it could no longer control; and confronting supranational institutions, such as the European Union, which it had created to rescue itself from a weak international perspective ; in the face of its increasingly manifest fiscal incapacity to provide its citizens with the services it could confidently provide just a few decades ago; Public law and social order, and these are the main functions of its existence.In the era when the state power was flourishing, it took so many functions into one body and set such an ambitious goal for itself to maintain absolute public order and control.What a beautiful past, contrasted with today's desolation and decadence, the more it aggravates the pain of powerlessness.

However, the state and government—or some other form of power representing the public interest—is increasingly indispensable if the world is to challenge the social inequalities and environmental problems created by the market economy.Or, as the capitalist reforms of the 1940s showed, the presence of the state is even more essential if the economic system is to continue to function adequately.If there is no government mechanism to allocate and redistribute national income, what will happen to the people in (for example) the old developed countries?Their economy rests upon a foundation of ever-increasingly rare gainers.Sandwiched between this group of limited income earners is a growing working population that is no longer needed by the high-tech economy, and an equally expanding number of older citizens who no longer have working income.Of course, if we say that the people in the European Union, under the condition that their per capita income jumped by 80% on average between 1970 and 1990, in 1990, "affordability" was taken for granted in 1970 The level of income and welfare of the Chinese people is false (World Tables, 1991, pp. 8-9).But such a situation would never have been possible without the intermediary of the state.Assuming—not impossible—that current trends continue to a point where only one-quarter of the population is employed and the remaining three-quarters have no income, in 20 years the economy will develop enough Output doubled the previous gross national income.Under such circumstances, apart from the public power, who will and who can guarantee that all people are guaranteed, at least a minimum income and welfare?Who can resist the trend of inequality that has been so pronounced in two decades of crisis?Judging by the experience of the 1970s and 1980s, rushing to the rescue was anything but a free market.If the lessons of those years have brought any evidence to the world, it is that the greatest political issue in the world - including the developed world, of course - is not how to increase national wealth, but how to distribute wealth for the well-being of the people.The issue of distribution is even more important for "developing" countries that desperately need more economic growth.Brazil is the biggest example of ignoring the consequences of social problems. In 1939, Brazil's average national income was almost two and a half times that of Sri Lanka; by the end of the 1980s, it was more than six times as high.However, the residents of Sri Lanka, under the staple food subsidies and free education and medical care (until the end of 1979), the average life expectancy of their newborns is several years higher than that of Brazil; its infant mortality rate was only in Brazil in 1969 Half, and in 1989 it was reduced to one third in Brazil (WorldTables pp 144-147, 52-127).If you compare the number of illiterates in the two countries, in 1989, Brazil was almost double that of the Asian island nation.

The distribution of social wealth, not growth, is set to dominate the political arena of the new millennium.Nonmarket allocation of resources—or at least ruthless restrictions on market allocation—is the main way to prevent future ecological crises.No matter which method is adopted, the fate of mankind in the new millennium depends on the restoration of public power.