Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Here whence people that a planned economy take better than market? A unique argument - that Stalin won war. At all only. Though it is already enough of it. Rates of increase at Stalin were the greatest in the world (probably and to this day). Principal advantage of a planned economy that it can concentrate country resources on definite purposes. In Stalin years the purpose was - industrialization and escalating of military power not to lose in approaching war. I do not have doubts that the market economy could not organize for the same short time so industry rapid growth. And at Stalin not all economy was state. More than 30 % of gross national product co-operative farms and private traders created. A problem only that our communists had a Marxist dogma that the property - angrily. Stalin too adhered to it, but it had a scent and it somehow avoided bad moves. And here its followers began to follow Marxist dogmas absolutely that led the country up a blind alley. Plus they betrayed a major principle which distinguished a socialism from capitalism. Stalin described the socialism and communism purpose - the maximum satisfaction of needs of all members of a society. And after reforms by the purpose there was a profit obtaining. And it, in the conditions of absence of a competition, led to degradation and regeneration of communists in capitalists. GZ> but it no more than history ignorance because on the other hand there was also a planned economy. It were plans. What communication between militaristic plans and a planned economy? At you the next attack of absence of communication in reasonings. Well, and the economy Hitlerite Germany was not planned. And the Marxist theory the plan not the purpose, and only means. It is not a system index. The main thing in the Marxist theory was absence of a private property on means of production. And Hitler had absolutely capitalist system based on a private property. The state did orders at private concerns, and those did sentences. Hitler kept on Porshah, Me and other Kruppah. So did not sweep bosh. As a matter of fact the Stalin economic system was related to one big corporation. And in Germany those there was a set and all of them were quotients. GZ> in remaining it there was the full sediment so Hitler entered coupons into 39 ohm, and Stalin in the first five-years period to economy had a hunger, Coupons entered both the United Kingdom, and France and many other countries. And hunger in Russia was and for hundreds years to Stalin. At us one continuous zone of unstable agriculture and poor harvests happen with periodicity of times in 3-15 years. Simply communists broke old system of caching of grain, and too were fond . Here hunger also led to disastrous consequences. GZ> and the plan, which many indexes fulfilled only in the fiftieth, One more false statement. The first five-years periods were fulfilled despite that the majority did not believe that it is possible. GZ> and a standard of living below happy imperial 1913 at seven-day week in 40 to year. Well, happy it was only for a bar yes misters. Otherwise this revolution so would not support. And a standard of living Stalin, and Nikolay 2 lowered to a plinth not, provisional government, and Lenin with Trotsky. Stalin took out the country from an ass and delivered on feet. And just passage to a planned economy also allowed to make it. GZ> the argument about Stalin - is insignificant. War showed that Hitler appeared even worse the planner than Stalin. It only in your imagination. And in a reality war showed that Hitler who by then has crushed under all Europe, lost the USSR in the economic plan. And this with the fact that many factories have been contracted and transported for Ural Mountains. And many also are blown simply up. Hitler had following advantages: 1. Excellent tactics of tank breaks. This tactics allowed to crush Frenchmen and Englishmen. 2. Suddenness. Misinformation and other games of politics he forced Stalin to check that does not attack on June, 22nd 1941 year. 3. Control over resources of all old Europe. 4. The strong centralized power. And for that matter, England and France were too capitalist. But they simply laid down before Hitler having spread and moving apart feet. So if you consider Hitlerite economy planned you should recognize that the planned economy is much more effective market in the military plan, at least that base that two leading capitalist economy could oppose nothing to Hitler. GZ> at the same time the USA prospered on the economy. Besides without a labor feat. The USA produced industrialization throughout 200 last years. The USSR transited the same way for 20 years, to be exact even for 10 as the first of these 10 years have been spent for squabbles with Lenin and Trotsky and on searches of ways. So both types of economy are effective. And both have advantages and lacks. But that as the country develops and reaches the purposes depends not on economy type more, and from that who costs at a wheel.