>>2037436
You're very confused about how planned economies work and their issues.
>infinite stagnation
Not true, the USSR had constant growth over time, the slow down started after the Stalin era: the state focused on developing the consumer goods industry instead of the heavy industry which is the backbone of all planned economies (same reason why the great leap forward was a failure btw) and passed state capitalist reforms which further desynced the economy and aggravated the issues of corruption within the managerial bureaucracy, forgery of numbers and tolerated incompetence. Notice how these problems aren't inherent to the planned model but are caused by going against it. Instead of fixing the actual inherent issues they ignored them and seeked to slowly get rid of the model over the years.
>needing to import food
Went through a civil war, sabotage from kulaks who burned the fields and caused a famine and ww2 which further destroyed the fields due to scorched earth tactics. Also industralization and population growth drastically increased food demand.
>technological backwardness
True, innovation is something planned economies are bad at compared to free market economies but not an unfixable flaw.
>causing shortages of everything
Barring special situations (industralization, ww2) there wasn't a shortage of essential goods, except probably in small siberian villages. Breadline photos are from the perestroika/Yeltsin era. Pic rel, CIA report.
>>2037476
Nordic countries aren't planned economies.
An often overlooked example of a successful planned economy was Albania which managed to maintain a steady growth with no crises or shortages for almost 40 years until the 80s when it stagnated due to technological backwardness (all despite isolation and small size).
Other countries of the WP had to face a lot of difficulties, primarily paying reparations for ww2 and Khruschev turning them into neocolonies after his comecon reforms.