The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (W W Norton & Company; 1998)

LOSERS^495

direction of openness. The code word is "adjustment"—surely a good

thing. A more open market is a force for rationality and efficiency, a re­

ordering of economic activity in the direction of comparative advan­

tage, a constraint on corruption and favoritism. And the prospect of aid

may be an incentive to cooperation in the struggle against the drug

trade—an industry whose growth can only be guessed at.^3 No guar­

antees. But better a push in the right direction than a return to the sta­

tus quo ante.

Among the heaviest losers in this period of record-breaking economic
growth and technological advance were the countries of the
Communist-Socialist bloc: the Soviet Union at the bottom of the bar­
rel, Romania and North Korea almost as bad, and a range of satellite
victims and emulators struggling to rise above the mess. Best off were
probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary, with East Germany (the DDR)
and Poland trailing behind. The striking feature of these command
economies was the contradiction between system and pretensions on
the one hand, performance on the other. The logic was impeccable: ex­
perts would plan, zealots would compete in zeal, technology would
tame nature, labor would make free, the benefits would accrue to all.
From each according to his ability; to each according to his deserts; and
eventually, to each according to his needs.*
The dream appealed to the critics and victims of capitalism, admit­
tedly a most imperfect system—but as it turned out, far better than the
alternatives. Hence the Marxist economies long enjoyed a willfully
credulous favor among radicals, liberals, and progressives in the ad­
vanced industrial nations; and a passionate, almost religious endorse­
ment by the militant "anti-imperialist" leaders of the world's poor
countries. Many colonies, now independent, turned to the socialist
paradigm with a hunger and passion that defied reality.^4
These favorable predilections long concealed the weaknesses of such
command economies. In fact, although the Russian state was capable

• The Soviets anticipated and perhaps taught the Germans. The "tens of thousands"
  of slave labor deaths incurred building the White Sea-Baltic canal (early 1930s)—
  picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows against snow, ice, and hunger—were justified by the
  allegedly redemptive character of the work, which would turn enemies of the people
  into good socialists. The slogan: "We will instruct nature and we will receive freedom."
  Compare the motto at the entrance to the Nazi death camps: Arbeit macht frei—
  Work makes free. On the Soviet dream (nightmare) of ruthless gigantism (gods do not
  weep), see Josephson, " 'Projects of the Century.' "