> regular military expenses were already a very heavy burden to USSR (10-15%
>GDP, an unsustainable level for any economy).
This probably happened after the Cuban missile crisis? Khruschev was removed and his policy of minimum nuclear deterrent was replaced by matching the NATO stockpile missile by missile. The Sino-Soviet split must have further added to the defense budget.
>the overall picture was one of stagnation (like Brazil in the 80´s-90´s or
>Japan in the 80´s) and there was even some modest growth in 1985-88 (about
>1,5%-2,5%/year). I think that the status of superpower, with all those
>extra
>expenses and compromises made very difficult to the Soviets to make the
>adjustments necessary to improve their economy. If the USSR was not a
>superpower it would have been much easier to deal with the slowdown of the
>70´s-80´s.
The Soviets don't seem to have anticiated the technological revolution in the fields such as electronics, telecommunication, biotechnology etc. How can you survive without moving up the technological ladder all the time? This has also immense political implications, since it would be difficult to sustain the economic autarchy and one party dictatorships in the era of internet.
>>Vol. 16 :: No. 06 :: Mar. 13 - 26, 1999
>>WORLD ECONOMY
>>The collapse of socialist economies
>>http://www.flonnet.com/fl1606/16061000.htm
>And btw, this article is excellent. Isn´t this newspaper related to the
Indian CP?
The journal maintains the broad Left orientation. It is not a mouthpiece of a CP, but reflects the influence of Communist Party of India (Marxist), the largest of Indian CPs.
Ulhas