Damn...I don't see anyone addressing the following. Why not?

When the Soviet Union was founded, it was built upon the most backward
economy in Europe. It was semi-feudal, lacked most of the fundamental
capital infrastructure that most of Europe and North America had already
built (roads, electrification, heavy industrial equipment, etc.), and,
after a devastating war that had decimated the armed forces, was invaded by
the West. During the 15 years of relative peace that preceeded the Nazi
invasion, tremendous capital formation took place that, when coupled with
strategic American and British military aid, allowed the USSR to repel the
Nazis, albeit at a tremendous cost. The country was laid waste, the
population decimated, and the defense capacity was again severely damaged.
These things are widely known historical facts, yet I never see them
considered in discussions like this. So again, I ask - why not?

- Don DeBar


----------
> From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] socialist unions
> Date: Sunday, May 18, 1997 4:47 PM
>
> You, Michael Coghlan, wrote:
>
> >I would have thought that it was abundantly clear - and again this is
not
> >from a theoretical standpoint - that socialism has failed in practice
and
> >that capitalist societies have shown themselves to be remarkably
resilient
> >in providing comparatively better lives for their citizens. People can
> >debate the advantages of one against the other on a theoretical level,
but
> >in practice the answer is clear. Socialism has failed.
> >
> >This is not meant to denigrate the ideas put forward by Bill Bartlett,
Brian
> >Callahan et al, or to directly contribute to the discussion on socialist
> >unions, but I'd be interested to hear people's responses on this.
> Socialism failed, as I see it, for two reasons. First, as it developed in
> this century it was invariably undemocratic; however there are plenty of
> examples of undemocratic countries with thriving (by macroeconomic
> standards) economies. So democracy per se is not determinative.
>
> Second, and I think most important, socialist state planning was
> extremely unwieldy. Post-industrial economies clearly need to be fluid if
> they are to stay on top of the mind-boggling change that we are living
> through. State socialism of the Soviet variety simply couldn't keep up.
> Add in its hostility to the free flow of information and it was bound to
> collapse. FWIW, I was predicting as much in the early 80s, before
> Gorbachev even arrived on the scene.
>
> Do bear in mind however that during the Depression, when capitalism lay
> in ruins, it was the Soviet economy that seemed destined to one day be
> the model that the rest of the world would follow. We are currently
> witnessing capitalism's "triumph", but I wonder how long it will last.
> Certainly there are glaringly unsustainable aspects to the system that
> cannot be forever maintained. When the day of reckoning comes, the
> picture ain't going to be pretty.