@Spyman: "Surely it is fact that planned economies are less efficient than market economies. Otherwise the communist block would have won the cold war. No?"
No. The USSR started out so far behind the USA that when the Cold War environment caused them to spend TWO THIRDS of their GDP on military projects, there was no way that, even though they had made huge progress economically, they would be able to compete with the USA in terms of the production of consumer goods. This, coupled with a number of other factors, led to the social unrest which brought about the fall of Soviet Communism.
@stratagos: "you did nothing to deserve the ire with which I responded, and for that I apologize."
Apology accepted mate - and I appreciate you having the balls to say so. Sorry to hear about your work stress.
Building on what I said to Spyman, I agree with you that economic decline had a major part to play in the eventual fall of the USSR. However, it is my view that many of the factors which brought about that economic decline are not factors which are 'built in' to socialism or a command economy, and therefore the example of the USSR does not, in my view, prove that communism can never work. I could write a very long essay here, but I've probably bored everyone enough, so to summarise very briefly:
- I totally agree that a lot of the massive construction in Siberia was foolish, uncessary, and massively costly.
- I feel that the vast amount of military spending (as I've noted, around 66% of GDP over a prolonged period) had an substantial negative impact on the economy - although it provided employment and drove technological progress, it diverted resources away from other production which would have allowed greater improvements in the standard of living. I consider this a very imporant issue.
- I agree that when estabishing a communist system, to a certain extent it can be necessary to force people to do things where, in a market system, they would have a choice and not be forced. However I think there is a tendency to over-state the value of 'choice'. I think in a lot of cases, in a capitalist economy, people are offered 'choices' that are either meaningless, or where there is only one sensible choice. I would also argue that choice can in many cases be very economically inefficient and wasteful, because choice inherently requires over-capacity. I would also point out that, even in capitalism, you force people to do all sorts of things like pay taxes, attend school, and you force companies to meet all sorts of standards, so it's not the case that only communism "forces people to do things their way".
Ultimately, for me, the 'invisible hand of the market' inevitably condemns many people to live in poverty unecessarily while other people grow rich. That stinks, and I feel it is our duty as civilised human beings to look for a better way.