What economic approach would actually work?

[spmetla]

Design wise Russian equipment was indeed up to par and even good, in some cases captured russian weaponry was employed by german units, the problem was that for a while the methods of production in the soviet union was hit and miss meaning they were prone to defects.

Of course the main factor of german sucess was stalins inability to see germany coming meaning the majority of russia's professional soldiers were caught literally half a world away from the front in 1941.

The unpreparedness only really affects the first few weeks. After the initial victories the Soviets were able to attempt proper defense against the Germans but met with failure. The Germans had just had 2 years of practical experience which they applied ruthlessly. Morale was high, low level initiative was high, and the tactics and forces available were right for the initial attacks.
The eventual Soviet victory wasn't so much anything to do with their economic system or industrialization but in that they simply learned how to fight modern war. Defense in depth, deception operations, the massive use of simple but extremely effective anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns as well as the proper use of armor in achieving and exploiting breakthroughs. All the while they wore down the German armies which became poorer and poorer in quality and quantity throughout the war despite the influx of 'Wunderwaffen'

[Gilrandir]

The eventual Soviet victory wasn't so much anything to do with their economic system or industrialization but in that they simply learned how to fight modern war. Defense in depth, deception operations, the massive use of simple but extremely effective anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns as well as the proper use of armor in achieving and exploiting breakthroughs.

+ Soviet commanders didn't shy away from burying the enemy under piles of their soldiers bodies. For example, when Kyiv was stormed in 1943 they coscripted locals en masse and goaded them before the regular troops even without giving them arms or uniform. It was a story of the so-called black infantry.

http://kpi.ua/en/node/7617

B. Sokolov, a Russian scholar, writes: “It was thought that “the black infantry” would only wear the Germans out and force them to spend their ammunition stock, enabling the new units to make the adversary retreat from the positions occupied.” (B.V. Sokolov. The Unknown Zhukov: an Unretouched Portrait in the Mirror of the Epoch. – Minsk: Rodiola-plus, 2000) .

Such an attitude towards compatriots, especially new recruits, was astonishing even to the Germans, who called soldiers like those “Beutesoldaten” (“trophy soldiers”).

From “The Diary” by O. Dovzhenko, entry for November 28, 1943: “Today V. Shklovs’kyi told me that a lot of liberated citizens conscripted in Ukraine were dying in combat. They are called black coats or something. They go to war in their home clothes, without any training, just like the soldiers from penal units. They are thought to be guilty. “A general was looking at them in battle and crying,” Victor told me.”

A similar story is told by Anatoliy Dimarov, an author: “When the village was liberated, all men aged between 16 and 60 – everyone with arms and legs, no matter if they were blind or deaf – got drafted. We were “armed”, that is, given half a brick each, and told to “go atone for your faults with your blood,” as we had been in the occupied territory. They must’ve meant we should’ve been throwing bricks, so that the Germans might think those were shells! 500 of us got sent on the ice of the impoundment… only 15 came out! And ten thousand of such unarmed guys got killed outside Izjum!”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think that anyone on this website would argue that the Soviets were anything but brutal in their use of personnel during what they labeled (quite cynically really) the Great Patriotic War.

Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."

[spmetla]

@ Gilrandir
I don't deny the brutality of the Soviet Army in the slightest or its continued use of very primitive barbaric methods. That doesn't however undermine the fact that they were fully incorporating the tenets of modern warfare by the mid-point of the war. They didn't surround and destroy 6th Army at Stalingrad through pure human waves, they didn't manage to hold on at Kursk by pure chance.
The Germans still had better units at that point and were experts at flexible defense (see von Manstein's Operations post-Stalingrad). The Red Army however was undeniably a new and potent mix of all the elements of modern war. Sheer numbers has a lot to do with it but as time went on the Germans lost any real tactical edge, the Soviet formations became smarter and more experienced while the Germans slowly lost the professional edge they enjoined in the earlier years on the Eastern Front.

FYI it's due to the excesses of the Soviets that my family moved from Upper Austria in the soviet occupied zone to Innsbruck after the war to to mention the number of great uncles that died on the Eastern front.

Vis-à-vis this thread theme, that attitude towards persons is, to me, all part and parcel of why the Soviet version of the directed economy did not work. The expenditure of human capital was barbaric, but the "human" was often missing from those directed economies in search of the "worker's paradise."

I agree, it always seems that the socialist and fascist elements forsake the humanist importance of the individuals rights and values and instead only value the order of the collective.

On the other-side though the anarcho-liberals and libertarians never have a way to effectively deal with the tragedy of the commons either. I another thread I know I referenced my 'anarchist' roommates and my example of their failure to take care of our 'communal property' such as the dorm bathroom and kitchen. These were my favorite examples in outlining how their proposed society would fail without assigned responsibility and some sort of division of labor.

Personally I find the ebb and flow between soft State-Capitalism and Corporationism as likely the most tolerable forms for economic systems. The pendulums swings each way through time and then through popular initiatives or protest generally results in restrain and the pendulum going the other way too. I look at the Robber Baron Capitalists of the 19th Century and then the entrance of Trust-Busting Teddy Roosevelt. Then the boom of the 20s and the crash leading to the New Deal and the pendulum has kept swinging back and forth since and will likely do so in the future.
It's not a perfect system by any means and is best met by regulations of both government and private enterprises but so far it seems to lift the average of society the most upwards for standard of living though the limits of the excess and poverty leave a bit to be desired to say the least.