Readers' Forum

But they also hold the power in a country where opposition parties are illegal. The ques tionin Poland, I was told several times, is not whether capitalism or socialism works better. Everyone knows that capitalism is the superior economic system. The question is, will those in power relinquish even a small portion of their power; and if they do, will the Russians allow it? Although many Americans place consider able faith in glasnost and perestroika, Polish dissidents look upon the new Russian openness as a short-term, unimportant development. The cycles of repression, hopeful change, and then further repression have been all too frequent for dissidents to believe that real change will come to Poland, or to the Soviet Union, as long as Marxism-Leninism holds sway. And yet, knowing that they can't remove the Communists from power, the dissidents still are willing to take terrible risks in slowly pushing the Communist system as far as they can. They have adopted the techniques of civil disobedi ence to win concessions such as alternative ser vice for draft resisters and promises to alleviate Poland's horrendous pollution problem.

These victories give them hope, but Poles are well aware that hard-won gains can be taken away overnight. The Polish people exist on a game board with twice as many squares leading back to "START" as those that would advance them to the final elimination of Communism. But to end the game would be to lose every thing, and this they refuse to do. They will con tinue to strike, to face the zomos, to go to jail, and to publish their underground works; but the outcome is anything but assured. D Readers' Forum To the Editors: Gary M. Anderson's otherwise excellent ar ticle (,'Profits from Power: The Soviet Econ omy as a Mercantilist State," December 1988) is too kind on Soviet-style command econo mies. 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, technolog ical capacity-these economies are utter fail ures. I suppose that under the weaker criterion both Vietnam and North Korea have econo mies, 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 develop ments 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 pos sible 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 vi sion, 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 so cial 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 WILDA VSKY University of California, Berkeley Gary Andersonreplies: 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 econ omy 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 aboli tion of the price system, but massive govern ment intervention which has driven the price system partially underground. The economy re mains a market, although a grossly distorted one, because a large, complex economy must be a market; coordination requires a price sys tem. Mises was absolutely correct in his assess ment 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 So viet-style system remains a source of tremen dous profit opportunities for ruthless power seekers. The worst who rise to the top in such a system receive large benefits, and can be ex pected 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 ruary 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 prob lem. It is a sad tribute to today's currents of non-self-responsibility that absolutely everyone 201 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 peo ple seem to prefer to anesthetize themselves and ron from reality rather than face their problems with a clear mind. Mr. Leef has brilliantly ex pounded upon this thesis in his article. The pop ular culture abounds with the mindset of the drug addict; no wonder so many drop out. Con sider "TGIF" and "Miller Time." These and countless other instances point to a popular dis dain 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 tum to drugs do so because they harbor a self-hatred and a pro found fear of existence. To the drug user, the world is a terrible, unpredictable, and danger ous place. These psychopathologies have their roots, I hypothesize, in the very same places examined by Mr. Leef in his article: the school ing by the state, welfare policies, and the myr iad market interferences which are inherent in the mixed economy. After all, what people fear most is uncertainty and doubt; the loss of per sonal control causes terror.

Ludwig von Mises has demonstrated that government interference in the market economy generates ever more uncertainty and unpredict ability 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 tum to drugs for solace. Mr. Leef has performed a great service to our drug war-weary nation. MICHAEL C. HOVEY Wilmington, Delaware We will share with readers the most interesting and provocative letters we re ceive regarding Freeman articles and the issues they raise. Address your letters to: To the Editors, The Freeman, The Foun dation for Economic Education, Irving ton-on-Hudson, New York 10533.