This probably happened after the Cuban missile crisis?
-I have a book written by a Brazilian author called Angelo Segrillo "The decline of USSR, an study of its causes". He has interesting data on USSR military spending. The peak of military spending as GDP share happened in early 1950´s. After 1966, as you points, there was a second peak, however, data on 1970-80 is controversial with some authors pointing a gradual increase and others pointing to stability. It must be considered that these calculations are subjected to multiple errors, as many military industries produced civilian goods and many civilian factories produced military equipment.
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.
-It seems the increase was not very important, according to data I have, but I have no data using the same methodology covering from 1950-85.
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.
-That´s exactly Segrillo´s argument. He argues that the closed political system was quite refractory to the free information flux necessary to build an IT based economy, and in many instances the Soviets deliberately delayed the introduction of technology like personal computers. On the other hand, he argues the the Soviets aknowledged the necessity of tech upgrades. Another point you´re right is on autharky. While an autharchy could work well if you are the dominat power, it´s a disaster when you are a weaker country in the world economic system. The inability of USSR to compete in the world market and to accumulate hard currency reserves (or better, to develop their own hard currency) was a heavy blow to their economy. Some right wingers like Pipes argue that the real Reagan´s strategy was not to force USSR to increase military spending, but to deny them access to hard currency (by political pressure over potential partners). The situation was further complicated by the sharp oil devaluation in 1986. Look at the Russia economy topic here
Look here at the sessions Russia and money http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/countries/index.html
1986: World oil prices plummet by 69 percent, and the dollar, the currency of the oil trade, drops like a stone. Almost overnight, the windfall oil and dollar profits the USSR has enjoyed for more than a decade are wiped out.
-Of course, the vulnerability of USSR was dur to its dependency on oil exportation, that´s why my blood freezes when I see Brazilian neoliberals talking about a strategy of external trade based on agriculture.....
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.
-What is the broadets orientation of this party and how would it stand in a eventual victory of the Congress party?
Alexandre
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 01/03/04
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.605 / Virus Database: 385 - Release Date: 01/03/04