As any regular reader of this space likely knows, the proprietor of IN RI is an avowed capitalist with little regard for communism. Further, of Canada's national newspapers, IN RI is a supporter of the National Post [right-leaning commentary] and shuns the Globe and Mail [left-leaning commentary]. Why mention these two topics in the same breath? Simply, because Robert Fulford, writing in the National Post of Saturday, 25 March 2006, made reference to an official of the Soviet Union who, during the Gorbachev era, toured an English market place. At the time, the Soviet Union was 'toying' with the idea of planning a free economy and turning away from a closed one. As the Soviet toured the farmers' market, he asked who set the prices for the produce that moved quickly in and out. The answer he was given was that no one set prices - the farmers asked what they hoped to receive and prices changed to reflect the standard supply and demand. In a word, what the Soviet saw was trading at a rudimentary level.
The Soviet official, having been born into and having lived under communism with its closed shop mentality, found it difficult to understand how a supply and demand system works. He said that now that he had heard the official line, he wanted to know who really set the prices. Sometimes it is difficult for those who have lived in a system that does not encourage individual entrepreneurship to understand how the free flow of goods and services can and does equate to a lively economy. The top-down, forced system so prevalent in socialist/communist economies tends to stifle the free flow of commodities.
IN RI is reminded of the story about a boot factory in one of the former Soviet Union countries that produced a set number of boots according to higher direction. It seems that the company was ordered to produce a thousand boots of a certain size. The company, being controlled by a closed shop, closed mind system did as directed - one thousand boots were produced; however, the one thousand boots were for the left foot [rather fitting, perhaps] and none for the right foot. The system was unable to recognise that supply and demand go hand in hand - without the demand there will be no supply. Certainly, there was little demand for boots for the left foot, only. Moreover, under such a system, individual initiative was unheard of. Nobody at the factory thought that producing one thousand boots for the left foot was unrealistic or, possibly, nobody had the gumption to question the top-down order.
George Orwell certainly knew the communistic system well and highlighted the folly of it in his well-read book Animal Farm.
This gem from Fulford: "In the 20th Century, in places like Korea and Taiwan, it [capitalism] proved that anyone with intelligence and energy could make it work. Now China and India, having more recently discovered free markets, are growing richer, or less poor."
It is surprising to this space that in today's world, there are educated people who cannot see the doom of socialism/communism and spout all manner of rhetoric to support a failed idea.
Fulford writes, "Of course capitalism works imperfectly." He then mentions China where for untold millions prosperity remains "barely a rumour." Regardless, capitalism beats communism both in the short and long term.
As the world has witnessed, communism and its pale cousin, socialism, fail sooner or later.
Is all of this relevant? Yes, pockets of silliness still exist in the world.
Bob Orrick is a retired private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
