<DIV>Doug is exactly right. When it came to food, shelter, education, and medical care for all, the USSR did great. When the contrast classwas civil war or foreign invasion, and the population could remember life under the Tsar, the regime was quite popular. When those things came to taken for granted, andf people longed to travel and enjoy a more consumerist life, then the system lost support, especially among the middle classes and the intelligentsia. jks Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Michael Pugliese wrote: > For starters, housing? How come during the 7 decades of Soviet >planning there was never enough domiciles so that millions of >newlyweds did not have to live with the in-laws in a crowded apt.? Compared with the U.S., where a third of the population has serious housing affordability problems? Compared with Kenya? This seems like where you're exactly wrong - the USSR's strength was providing basic needs. Its weakness was consumer gadgetry and services (and tampons). Doug ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.yahoo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/">SBC Yahoo! DSL</a> - Now only $29.95 per month!