Finally there is the question about why the system came apart. Michael Ellman, a very distinguished exoert on planning and no particular fan of the USSR argues (in his anthology, The Dinintegration of the Societ Economy), that the system was deliberatelt dismantled by the perestroichiki rather than merely collapsing. Had not Gorbachev, et al, taken apart the central planning apparatus and put nothing in its place, it is at least possible and perhaps likely that we would still have the USSR to kick around into the indefinite future. In consumerist terms, that does not mean that it woukd have been a success.
--jks
In a message dated 00-04-25 05:33:05 EDT, you write:
<< So, the following is based on false statistics. The GNP estimates
produced by Soviet planners were based on false reporting. Whole
industries were empty shells producing goods that existed on paper, but
in fact were useless.
>>Excluding the period of war and recovery associated with World War II, much
>>of which was fought on Soviet territory, the Soviet gross national product
>>(GNP) grew at a high average rate of 5.1% per year during 1928-75, based on
>>Western estimates (see Table 1, p 24). Even during 1950-75, after basic
>>industrialization had been completed, the Soviet economy still grew
>>rapidly--much more rapidly than the US economy during those years, as Table
>>1 shows.
All of which begs the question why did the superior economic entity
collapse in the face of the inferior? No. The answer is that soviet
industry proved to be a paper tiger. >>