But a study by the ex-socialist and now vehehemently right wing but very good scholar Janos Kornai, The Socialist System, includes a comparative analysis of innovation and finds exactly one major innovation of formerly existing socialism, the satellite, out of 20 some basic innovations of the 20th century. This despite the fact that Soviet scientists and engineers were second to none. The system failed them for reasons Hayek explained.
More generally the Soviet system was lost from the start, as Lenin foresaw (without a successful,German revolution), partly because of Hayekian reasons, partly because of foreign hostility, partly because of the triumph of a hidebound bureaucracy under the dictatorship of a cruel and irrational tyrant. But I don't think Bukharin or Trotsky could have saved the Soviet experiment. Socialism in one country was a fact, and a trap, not a choice. As Isaac Deutscher said, socialism in a backwards country gives you backwards socialism. Alternative leadership would have been less savage and destructive, but the USSR was doomed after November 1918.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 8, 2012, at 11:05 PM, michael perelman <michael.perelman3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> James Heartfeld wrote:
>
> "there was no possibility of building socialism in Russia, without
> access to western technology, on terms that simply were not on offer."
>
> I don't know. Others are more up on the subject than I am, but my
> sources indicate that the Soviets's weapons were superior to the
> Nazis. The country had pretty good training in science, math, and
> technology.
>
> Too much of their resource went into the military, but they were
> surrounded by enemies.
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA
> 95929
>
> 530 898 5321
> fax 530 898 5901
> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk