I meant that GDP did not grow beyond 1916 levels until the late 20's, which means a lot of potential for growth was lost.This is obviously wrong. According to Wheatcroft, Davis and Cooper the level of production had fallen ninefold by 1920, compared to 1916 (due to the destruction caused by WW1 and the civil war). By 1928 the USSR's GDP had recovered to pre-war levels (depite the loss of Poland, the Baltics, Finland, Moldova, Western Ukriane and Western Belarus. GDP per capita was actually higher in 1930 than it had been in 1913). How can you claim that GDP didn't grew between the end of the civil war and the late 20s?
Increase in GDP per Capita of a country does not necessarily mean that it has become more modern or prosperous. There have been many cases of Countries where GDP per capita increased while productivity decreased. Eg. Venezuela during Chavismo had its productivity decline while GDP per capita increased on the backs of Oil prices. But these are based on shaky grounds and do not contribute to the modernization of a country. In Soviet Russia's case, this was on the backs of severely increased working hours rather than any significant modernization of production techniques.Really? So untill the late 30s, most of the USSR's economic growth was just recovery from the civil war? GDP per capita had allmost doubled in 1939, compared to 1913 (despite war and civil war).
Well M. Suhara was taking the average of a quarter century worth of economic growth, but for a large portion of this time Russia was in a recession with low growth in the industrial sector. But by 1907 it had began growing rapidly again and continued doing so even into the great war. So the 6.1% figure is somewhat misleading in giving the growth rate.May I see a source for that? Because again, according to Manabu Suhara (your source), Tsarist Russia's industry grew by 6.1% a year between 1888 and 1913.
How can you say that collectivization was not a disaster for Soviet agriculture when it lead to deaths of millions of peasants, destruction of livestock (which did not recover until the 1950s) and indeed decrease in output value compared to private plots?In 1913, the Russian Empire's grain harvest amounted to 86 million tons (according to "Russian Agricultural Statistics" by Manabu Suhara). According to "low" western estimates, the USSR's grain harvest amounted to 97 million tons in 1937 (Stephen Wheatcroft, "The Economic Transformationof the Soviet Union"). And, again, the Russian empire controlled Poland, Finland, the Baltics, Moldova, Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, while the USSR didn't. Taking this, and the fact that the economy all but collapsed during the civil war, into account, the increase in grain production is even more impressive.
Schooling rate and literacy rate measure two very things. A country, especially one which only recently emerged out of feudalism like Tsarist Russia, could have very low literacy rate with high schooling rate. However once you have the schooling infrastructure, teachers etc. It is a trivial matter for your literacy rate to grow. Whats important is that Russia had universal schooling.In 1913 Russia had a literacy rate of 38%, and the number actually decreased during the war (reaching 32% in 1920). However, in 1926, literacy had grown to 55% (thanks to "Libkez", the USSR's anti-illiteracy campaign). So the USSR archieved in just a few years, what the Autocracy failed to do in decades.