Question

Enumerate the merits and demerits of centralised planning of russian Revolution

Answer 1

Most people would mention the lack of redundant investment, although that is rarely the case in non-centrally planned economics — at least, not for major infrastructures. Double investment in capitalist systems often have reasonable differences and wage enough surplus. However, the coherence of the plan does offer the opportunity to pool in for much larger projects. One might argue that the capitalist United States was as capable as the Soviet Union to build a space program — that would be failing to see that both, and the Highway system, the Battle for England, the Mahnattan project, the Internet, Cern, etc. are all typical of a (non-exclusive) centralised economic planning. The countless technological impact of those (individual transport, radio, fast aircraft, nuclear energy, etc.) would never have been leverage without a private sector — but their inception is the main benefit of some central planning. 

More generally, the point of central planning is generally justified at the theoretical level by externalities and market failures: central planning controls pollution, encourages saving natural resources (see Norway Oil reserve management), encourages training, investment and health beyond personal gain, but at levels positive for the general welfare (see France productivity).

Special cases are better taken care of, in general: people with handicap have decent conditions and don't rely on begging; artists (musicians in particular) have more even revenues; racism can still exist, but has far less economic impact; milder segregation against