Readers Forum
To the Editors:
Gary M. anderson’s otherwise excellent article (“Profits from Power: The Soviet Economy as a Mercantilist State,” December 1988) is too kind on Soviet-style command economies. It is difficult to imagine a weaker criterion than that an economy should exist and produce something of value to somebody. If we reinstate the usual criteria—namely, economic growth, the degree of consumer satisfaction, technological capacity—these economies are utter failures. I suppose that under the weaker criterion both Vietnam and North Korea have economies, but there isn’t too much more to be said for them.
A different conclusion is warranted: whereas in the 1930s and ‘40s the view that without a price system no economy could develop over time was logically plausible, only developments from the 1950s onward made it possible to observe actual attempts around the world to employ central command as an economizing device. Whereas before it might have been possible to say that most command economies would fail but some would succeed, now it is possible to say definitively, for our time, at least, that no command economy works well. For those in the Soviet Union and elsewhere who have sacrificed much in favor of this vision, this must be a crushing blow. For others who once aspired to such a vision, it is clear that they must choose otherwise. Whereas most social theories, given the nature of this recalci trant subject matter, remain around forever and it is very rare to see them discredited, we ought to take pleasure in the fact that life has thrown up sufficient empirical experiments for almost everyone to reach the correct conclusion.
Aaron Wildavsky
University of California, Berkeley
Gary Anderson replies:
Professor Wildavsky and I are in complete agreement about his major point, that Soviet-style economies perform relatively poorly. The only dimension in which the Soviet-style economy really excels is in enriching the dictator and others who control the apparatus of the State.
However, I object to the description of the Soviet system as a “command economy.” The reality of the Soviet economy is not the abolition of the price system, but massive government intervention which has driven the price system partially underground. The economy remains a market, although a grossly distorted one, because a large, complex economy must be a market; coordination requires a price system. Mises was absolutely correct in his assessment that socialism is impossible. The state has imposed tremendous distortions which exploit consumers terrifically, but the market has not been abolished. I believe that the end result is more properly described as “mercantilist” than “socialist.”
I also agree with Professor Wildavsky that the consistently poor performance of the Soviet-style economies is gradually forcing many to realize the huge gap between their vision and reality. But we must also recognize that the Soviet-style system remains a source of tremendous profit opportunities for ruthless power-seekers. The worst who rise to the top in such a system receive large benefits, and can be expected to defend these special privileges with the same ruthlessness.
Gary M. Anderson
California State University, Northridge
To the Editors:
I would like to praise The Freeman for a most outstanding article which appeared in the Feb-mary 1989 issue. It is George Leef’s “Why is There a Drug Problem?” Outside of Thomas Szasz’s writings, Mr. Leef’s is the only one I have seen which truly addresses the drug problem. It is a sad tribute to today’s currents of non-serf- responsibility that absolutely everyone blames drug usage on everything except the drug user himself.
I have long been convinced that the “drug problem” is simply that large numbers of people seem to prefer to anesthetize themselves and run from reality rather than face their problems with a clear mind. Mr. Leef has brilliantly ex-pounded upon this thesis in his article. The popular culture abounds with the mind-set of the drug addict; no wonder so many drop out. Consider “TGIF” and “Miller Time.” These and countless other instances point to a popular disdain for work and a wish to escape.
If I may suggest it, I think that Mr. Leef’s thesis could be expanded upon in psychological terms. I believe those who turn to drugs do so because they harbor a serf-hatred and a profound fear of existence. To the drug user, the world is a terrible, unpredictable, and dangerous place. These psychopathologies have their roots, I hypothesize, in the very same places examined by Mr. Leef in his article: the schooling by the state, welfare policies, and the myriad market interferences which are inherent in the mixed economy. After all, what people fear most is uncertainty and doubt; the loss of personal control causes terror.
Ludwig von Mises has demonstrated that government interference in the market economy generates ever more uncertainty and unpredictability and that this is the harrowing legacy of inflation. If we school our children that there are no principles, that knowledge is impossible, then they will grow up fearing a totally incom prehensible universe and likely will turn to drugs for solace.
Mr. Leef has performed a great service to our drug war-weary nation.
Michael C. Hovey
Wilmington, Delaware
