I was always under the impression that Gorbachev was a naïve optimist who tried to reform the USSR too rapidly, but failed. So how exactly did he screw up and how could the USSR have been saved?

  • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    The take home message is that the state does not need to plan how the production for clothings, refrigerators, fans, washing machines, furnitures, or food services should be organized. This should be left to the people’s owned industries, while generously supported by state lending programs. On the other hand, key sectors that require massive investment and resource allocation do benefit greatly from state planning.

    This sounds halfway between keynsianism and total state monopoly or do i misunderstand?

      • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        thanks for the thoughtful response

        As for the artels (small local businesses), there are also multiple layers of councils and unions that regulate their activities. For example, you cannot have more than 20% of employees that do not possess the artel membership. The artel members also elect the head of their artels - effectively turning those businesses into cooperatives. They are allowed (mostly) unrestricted access to procure raw materials from the state for their needs, set prices based on contracts with their customers, manage their own finances etc. The point is to stimulate domestic industries that produce and diversify soft consumer goods to provide for the Soviet people (and also for exports).

        I found this part particularly interesting because it shows that the soviet economic policy had a lot more nuance to it than it is generally given credit for.

    • Mardoniush [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      There's some relation to dirigisme economies but as granit points out the state has much more involvement and the small businesses need to be structured according to solo sole trader or co-op models.