In Crisis Come Hopes for a New, New Deal : Perestroika: Just as F.D.R.’s New Deal transformed America, reforms can bring the Soviet Union out of the economic wilderness. But delays, deviations and sabotage loom.

The word crisis has become part of our political vocabulary. We knew that this was true as far as capitalism was concerned. Today we find ourselves experiencing the same ailment, which makes it possible to draw certain analogies.

Capitalism was in a state of very grave crisis in the late 1920s and the early ‘30s. The attempts of some countries to extricate themselves from a capitalist system by resorting to totalitarian dictatorships, war and imperial chauvinism led to complete catastrophe for which, unfortunately, the rest of the world also had to pay a high price.

A different approach prevailed in the United States. That country’s leaders realized that they could get out of the crisis through radical reforms and democratization--the same things we call perestroika nowadays. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal also came up against numerous difficulties.

Still, the New Deal triumphed and saved capitalism. But it was a capitalism different from that described by Marx and Engels in the 19th Century and by Lenin at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Today many Soviet economic executives and some of our scientists try to persuade us that in the course of economic reforms, our citizens will have to make more sacrifices and that the situation “will grow worse before it gets any better.” I don’t see how it can get much worse than now. It is illogical to contend that the efforts to restore elementary economic order in a generally rich country, which has all the necessary conditions for normal life but has been led to the brink by economic inefficiency, could lead to even further deterioration.

We are told that this is inevitable because a radical economic reform will take a long time. This may be so, especially if we continue to put up with delays in carrying through the reform, deviations from its course and even sabotage.

I can’t accept any explanation other than complete loss of control over the economy and lack of personal responsibility for such failures. The same is true of the outrageous situation in distribution, in which a great many of our products disappear without a trace, like in the twilight zone.

I think that we don’t give enough importance to a condition that exists from top to bottom throughout the Soviet Union today--the lack of efficiency, professionalism, elementary managerial skills and the ability to solve problems.

Some economic reform proposals call for shifting the burden of hardship onto the population, whose living conditions are already far from easy, by calling for money confiscation in one form or another. Does a state, in particular one with the ambition to become based on the rule of law, have any right at all to take away money belonging to its citizens? Such a measure should only be used in the event of war or revolution or other emergencies. It cannot be used to solve problems that are the result of mismanagement and the mistakes, ineptitude and inefficiency of economic leaders.

More realistic and long-term measures have been suggested, including the reduction of state expenditures. The Soviet Union remains a rather extravagant spender, throwing away hundreds of billions of rubles on unnecessary capital construction, the production of unnecessary commodities, the military and the maintenance of a huge apparatus. It is bad when the finance ministry strives to make up for this bacchanalia of extravagance with excessive taxes and all sorts of extortions that may ruin the country.

Comparing the experience of our countries might help those who cannot understand that many people in the United States and Western Europe regard the success of perestroika as being in their interests. During the Great Depression, was it in the interests of the Soviet Union for the United States to follow the same route of several European countries into fascism and militarism, or see the New Deal prevail, even though its aim was to save capitalism? World War II showed the benefit of the second alternative. And today, when many nuclear power stations are scattered across the globe and when huge arsenals of deadly weapons have been accumulated in the world, who stands to gain from outbreaks of uncontrollable violence and anarchy in any country?

There are ways out of the present difficulties. Let us not frighten either ourselves or others, for this could only demoralize the people and destabilize the situation. Besides, the inflation of pessimism and the exaggeration of difficulties are just a suitable and handy way to cover up the tracks of bad economic leaders and inefficient workers and justify the slow pace of reforms designed to change the economy and the style and methods of economic management.