In 1927, Joseph Stalin, his power secure, began to concern himself in earnest with the state of the Soviet Union. The economy was in shambles. Production was dismal. People were starving. If the USSR was to survive, it needed to modernize and improve its economy. In response, Stalin introduced his first 5 Year Plan.
The first 5 Year Plan addressed the economy as a whole. Education, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, health, along with many others areas of the economy, were cited as in need of reform and progress. Committees were established and information was gathered and studied. Eventually, determinations were made and goals were set. In 1928, it was ordered that coal production be increased by 1,115%; iron production by 200%; electricity by 335%. Similar increases were demanded in food production, housing, and virtually every other area of the economy. It was determined that 250,000 tractors would have to be produced.
While few of the goals were achieved, there were significant increases in production: enough to convince the planners that they were on the right track. Millions starved and were imprisoned, but production increased. The "success" of the first 5 Year Plan led to more being created. Some were more successful than others. Later plans would concern themselves with particular areas of the economy that were identified as in need of government intervention: "stimulation" would be the polite word for it. In each case, needs were identified by the government and goals were set. Plans and policies were then made and implemented. Even though the Soviets were able to achieve much and made remarkable advancements in many fields, the economy stagnated. People suffered. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed.
Today in Washington, the administration and Congress survey a nation that, while not in shambles, is in need of help. Experts are assembled. Examinations are made and needs identified. Information is gathered and studied. Determinations are made. Plans are formulated and policies implemented. Money and resources are allocated. It is not unlikely that there will be some success. Statistics will be provided on how productivity has improved in this or that area and how the life of citizens has improved according to this index or that. Credit will be claimed and honors bestowed. Policy will be vindicated. Rewards will be expected.
The U.S. today is manifestly different than the Soviet Union of the 1930's. Little, if any, of the backwardness and incompetence that plagued the Soviets is prevalent in the U.S. Our infrastructure is dramatically superior to what the Soviets had. Our workers are better trained, educated, and motivated that the Soviets' ever were. Our government is arguably much more enlightened. So, why are we taking lessons from the Soviets? Why are we obsessively collecting data and forever convening commissions and panels to study that data? Why are so many in Washington preoccupied with setting goals for our economy and identifying those areas most in need of "stimulation"? Why is the government so determined to manipulate the economy? Why is the government seeking to take control of the health care industry, of one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy?
It is one thing for IBM to study the market, gather information, and set goals. It is quite another for the government to do so. IBM has simple goals: its goal is to make a profit. The federal government has many goals, least of which is to make a profit.
As was the case in the Soviet Union, capitalists and capitalism are increasingly objects of suspicion and criticism. The desire to make a profit is a suspicious motive at best. Often, industries that seek to make a profit are criticized when their goals are perceived as incongruous with public goals; whatever those goals may be at the moment. Health insurance companies are today a fashionable target for those angry at the bourgeoisie. Their attempts to make a profit are cited as proof of their counterrevolutionary ideas. The state must intervene in health care, as it has in so many other areas, to defend the working class and the common man against the injustice and greed of capitalists. In the Soviet Union, the government claimed that its policies and programs were formulated and implemented in the name of the people: an argument that is increasingly familiar today.
Sadly, as was also the case in the Soviet Union, power claimed by the government is just that: power claimed by the government. Though it will be proclaimed that the power belongs to the people, it will be wielded by the government and the bureaucrats. It will belong to the people in name only. Centralized planning and state control are no longer out of fashion. In the Soviet Union, everything was political. Unfortunately, that too, is a concept no longer out of fashion.
No comments:
Post a Comment