Science, Science and Marxism

[Justin Schwartz]

Planned systems are OK at simply defined crash projects to which unlimited 
resources can be devoted. The Soviets had a handful of good products in 
machine tools, weapons systems, and the like. But you can't eat that stuff. 
Despite decades of efforts under Brezhnev, they failed to develop adequate 
consumer goods because you can't treat them like Kalashnikovs. Economists 
call this the difference between intensive and extensive development. This 
is tedious. Go read, e,g., Ellman's Socialsit Planning or Shmelev's & 
Popov's TheTurning point, or Nove's Economics of Feasile Socialism, or 
Kornai's The Socialsit System, and then if you want to discuss this stuff we 
can do so in an informed way. jks
>
>jks -- There's no comparison with Soviet goods, none. Soviet TV sets
>regularly
>exploded; the smart purchaser kept a bucket of sand by the set. There was a
>actually a TV show under perestroika that was based on making fun of
>worthless goods. A handful of Soviet products, machine tools and the like,
>were world market quality. For the rest, Soviet industry made stuff that 
>was
>
>unmarketable.
>
>They built pretty good MiGs and Kalashnikovs and space stations. I think
>priorities had something to do with this.
>
>Didn't the USSR sell cars to Latin America?
>
>Chris Doss
>The Russia Journal

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.