> [WS:] Except that there was no widespread systematic rejection of socialism as a system by working class or intelligentsia.
As Chris said, there was widespread unhappiness with the material standard of actually existing socialism. The word "socialism" held great legitimacy until near the end, but whenever socialist-inspired intellectual movements for reform grappled with economic issues they invariably supported decentralizing moves in the direction of what our local Marxists would call, with horror, "value production." See the account in Brus and Laski's _From Marx to the Market_ (written by two economists who dedicated much of their careers to sincere socialist ideals).
> some EE intellectuals smelled the influence - and money - of Thatcherite and Reaganite thinks tanks.
>
Of course. But what I find striking is that in every one of these countries there were batteries of accomplished and dedicated economists and technical experts, some of whom no doubt remained devoted to egalitarian and democratic economic ideals right up to the end. These economists had decades of practical experience dealing with the problems and possibilities of planned economies. And yet one almost never hears of any who are willing to say - today - that from their experience the planned economy could work well, it only needed certain political and structural changes, here's how it could be done. Maybe there's a whole intellectual movement of such ex-planners that I just haven't heard about, but anyway I haven't heard about them.
SA