Instead of getting me to demonstrate things, why don't you demonstrate how America's scientific achievements over the same time period were greater? In doing that, you should consider the different starting points. When a nation prevents people from converting its currency into another's it's time to acknowledge the existence of said nation state really. You might hate Authoritarian Socialism, but it was what it was.
The starting points are irrelevant for this discussion. The US came late to the space race and put a man on the moon first (assuming the official story is true.) Is that proof enough? The US was also the first to successfully utilize nuclear power in military applications, and the USSR only opened a functioning reactor for a power grid after the US declassified it's research. While the US at the time had some limited socialistic practices, the economy supporting the efforts was largely capitalistic, especially in comparison to the USSR.
You know it was sustainable itself. Look at what happened late on in WWII. You're initial point was that Socialist states fail because they don't encourage individuals with talent.
No socialist state has proven itself sustainable economically, but neither has any other form of statism.
Also, that was not a point, it was a question, which you have not fully addressed. Also,what happened in late WWII that is relevant to your claim?
If the USSR failed to win a weapons race with the USA, but generally put time and effort into particularly talented individuals and reaped the rewards, then your point is moot.
Logic fail. I questioned, not stated, whether socialism provided comparable incentive to the individual, excluding at gunpoint, and the answer was that socialism was not capable producing equal ingenuity; either due to lack of motivation or other systemic issues. So it is not "moot".
The doctors would have to be unpaid for it to be slave labour.
The dictionary says otherwise.
They all likely chose their professions anyway, and I dare say getting to travel with their job is a popular option.
My point isn't that socialism is wonderful, but that the idea that socialism fails due to an inherent problem with making talented individuals flourish is wrong and unproven. I suspect that a socialist economy may well develop on a different time scale than a capitalistic one, but given that America's own development is probably unsustainable moots that point. By unsustainable, I mean I don't see how it can react to the changing oil market rapidly enough in the future to not suffer. While socialist states, in practice, bar Cuba, are even worse at this, one of the massive fundamental flaws with Lassez-Faire Capitalism, is that any finite resource will basically be massively over relied upon until the end point, because any kind of planning would have to be centralised and made by people who have greater matters than what goes on in their life, time in mind.
I like how you said "likely". Given your other lack of fact checking I am going to reject your claim without proof.
Regarding your comments on sustainability, I agree to a point. All centrally controlled methods eventually fail as they simply cannot plan for or adapt to, not only unforeseeable events, but the consequences of their attempts to control, both intended and unintended.
The problem with pointing out problems in more capitalistic systems is that the problems confronted are not capitalistic in nature but due to attempts in one area or another at centralized control.
