Posted by
voice_of_reason on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:50:23 PM
The Soviet Union had some significant accomplishments, including putting the first man in space.
The Soviets also had pretty good universities, particularly in the pure sciences.
Do these achievements cast Socialism (or its older brother, Communism) in a different light?
The stated goals of the Soviets were to have a self-sufficient system which produced an abundance of products and services for the Comrade Proletariat Toilers - instead of an accumulation of wealth in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The reality: famine in the Ukraine, breadlines in Moscow, empty grocery stores, chronic shortages everywhere.
Their (limited) early success in the Space Program came at the cost of a massive mis-allocation of resources. Central planners in Moscow literally gave the shirt off their citizens' backs to make that achievement possible. It is fitting therefore that in 1961, the same year that Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, the Soviets also built a wall in Berlin to keep capitalist W. Germans from escaping to the E. German paradise.
What about the vaunted halls of academia that one hears about in Socialist countries?
Well, in a sort of back-handed way, the lack of private enterprise actually helped make their Universities better .. and this applies to countries like China, India etc.
How, you ask?
Due to the lack of opportunities, the top tier of every graduating class went into relatively well paid teaching jobs at Govt-run universities. So, their best minds, lacking other productive avenues available to their counterparts in Capitalist-oriented countries, went into teaching (or into very few, select, Govt-paid projects such as their Space, Nuclear or Defense Programs).
Iterate that concept over a few generations, and you have universities with brilliant professors, that produce good students with few productive avenues after graduation.
So, not only do Socialist/Communist systems mis-allocate materials, they do the same (or worse) with their human resources!
They did well in a few 'Govt select' professions such as Rocket Scientists, Nuclear Engineers and Professors.
What they lost were generations of Inventors, Doctors, Engineers, Businessmen, Dentists, Technicians, Mechanics, Assemblers, Farmers, Truckdrivers, .. , and yes, lawyers!
What's the lesson here? When we increase the size and scope of our Govt, we increase our PUBLIC sector at the expense of our PRIVATE sector. In addition to the higher taxation that acts as a millstone around the productive sectors of our economy, it also leads to the severe mis-allocation of people.
In the PRIVATE sector, a failed entity (e.g. a corporation that suffers sustained losses) dies a natural death.
However, it is very difficult to shrink failed PUBLIC sector programs that are already in existence. Usually that is because of a false sense of entitlement that invariably sets in after generations of dependence. There is a hoping-against-hope mentality that persists as programs that are known to be broken receive more funding every year (e.g. Public Education). After a few generations, even rational, well-meaning people think that it is impossible to consider any alternatives to those programs.
How many times have we heard "If the Govt didn't provide K-12 education, our children would not be well-educated"? Strangely, this question is asked by people who KNOW that our children are not receiving a satisfactory education in our K-12 system.
Let's keep all these facts in mind during the upcoming debates on Universal Health Care.