 As if we didn't "enjoy" the benefits of Communism for long enough, some people in Romania still believe that a communist system is better than a capitalist one. There's this general opinion in some circles that it was better before (1989) ["inainte era mai bine"(tm)]. What these people like to believe is that communism is still a good idea and could actually work, but wasn't applied correctly in Romania and elsewhere. Even some people in the US and Western Europe, who basically live a life of mintrubbing in their suburban homes and their oversized SUV's, like to believe that a communist system (or a "marxist-leninist" one, as they sometimes refer to it) would be a much better option than the current capitalist one. Well, let us dispel another myth. The fundamental difference between a democratic/capitalist system and a communist one is economic, and not political. This difference deals with the allocation of available resources. The problem is that resources are limited, while needs of people are not. There will never be enough products and services on the market to satisfy every need of every person living in a particular country. This happens because products and services require resources to be produced - raw materials, labor, equipment, money, etc; since resources are limited, products will also be limited, so they can't be allocated freely to everyone. This is why we use money (and this is also the reason why some Communist plans proposed the elimination of money from the economy). Thus the most important issue that an economic system needs to address is how to allocate available resources. A capitalist system asks the question "How can we allocate available resources in the most efficient way?". It has been found that the most efficient way to allocate resources is to let hundreds of thousands of private companies compete for them. Companies that are efficient, flexible and innovative find ways to get access to these resources and use them in the most efficient manner. Waste is reduced to a minimum and thus society as a whole gets the most benefits possible from the limited resources it has available. Indeed, fairness is lost in the process. There will always be some filthy rich people and some heart-breaking poor ones; but most people will be somewhere in the middle. Efficient allocation of resources means that this middle class - the largest part of society - will use resources in the best possible way. More important, society will progress as companies find new more effective ways to produce. A communist system asks a different question: "What is the fairest way to allocate available resources?". The answer to this question is a central planning authority that allocates resources equally among each person living in a particular country, so that each person gets two pair of shoes per year, one car every 5 years and so on. Every economic decision is planned, from what needs to be exported or what the total production of wheat should be to how many shoes a person buys each year or how much bread they eat. Indeed, efficiency is lost in the process. A planning authority, no matter how bright and intelligent can never be a substitute for millions of private companies striving to find the most efficient ways to produce in order to survive on the market. Central planning tends to focus on the bigger picture, and thousands of little details are lost in the process. But as is often the case, the big picture is composed of little details, and no central planning authority can successfully and efficiently manage and forecast all of them. Now we're discussing a hypothetical perfect communist system, not the ones that were implemented in Eastern Europe and elsewhere and in which a ruling elite emerged. So in this hypothetical system resources might end up being allocated fairly, but this type of allocation will lead to inefficiency, missed opportunities and waste. Thus everyone will be worse off and have fewer of their needs met. What's worse, the situation deteriorates in time. As needs grow and become more complex, centralized planning and allocation also increases in complexity, leading to even more inefficiency and waste. Sure, communism might have been good in the middle ages, but now people demand electricity, telecommunications, transportation, the internet and thousands of other things. Romanians who miss communism tend to forget about the bigger picture. Many people agree that conditions in Romania in the late 60's and early 70's were more than decent; by the end of the 70' the situation had deteriorated a lot; in the 80's life had become almost unbearable. So, yeah, things might have been better for some people back then, but everything was going downhill; I don't even want to think about how a Communist Romania might have been in the year 2000. And this didn't only happen in Romania: Russia, with all its might and power, suffered a similar fate, and the collapse of communism was prompted in large part by an ailing economy. This deterioration process is inherent to communism: as populations increase and human knowledge advances, needs that have to be met also increase, both in numbers and in complexity. A planned, centralized economy cannot and will not find increasingly efficient ways to use available resources in order to meet these needs. Even the mighty China has recognized these problems and is slowly moving away from a centralized economy, allowing more and more freedoms in the way business is done. Far from being the visionaries they were once thought to be, Marx and Lenin were just a couple of idiots. Their ideas and strategies have very limited practical value but had very grave consequences for the countries and people that were unfortunate enough to apply them. So next time I'm going to hear someone in Romania or abroad saying that Communism (or "Marxism-Leninism") should be considered as an option, I will be forced to kick their ass, because they have no idea what they're talking about; they either don't know or have forgotten about the millions that have died as a result of Communism, about widespread poverty, control and terror, about the lack of basic human rights and basic products and services. Two more things and I'll be done with it. First, capitalism doesn't work in Romania right now because the people who formulate and implement economic policies are mediocre and have no idea what they're doing. Eventually this will change. Second, I'm not the one to say that a democratic/capitalist system is perfect (for a discussion of democracy and ways that it can improve, read our feature entitled The Future of Democracy). It's just the best we system we've got at this point. Eventually this might change as well. But until this happens, I don't want to hear anyone else talk about Communism and how it might work if applied properly. In this case I won't be forced to kick anyone's ass and we'll all be happy. |
