Cmon, don't fuck this one up

  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    THE FUCK DOES THIS EVEN MEAN?? like, this isn't talking about Gorbachev's fuck ups or Khrushchev's reforms, it follows the previous quote so I guess "sustainability" is "not repressing people"?

    it's one of my more controversial opinions here but I think Khrushchev's reforms were actually necesary he just fucked up the implementation

    • star_wraith [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, I think there were roughly 3 issues at play:

      1.) Khrushchev’s implementation sucked and had a mix of good ideas and bad ideas.

      2.) The bureaucratic structures in place from before him pushed back on any significant changes to how the economy was to be run. I think the Brezhnev era was in part a response to these attempts as Brezhnev largely just tried to keep things as they were (even though the Soviet economy desperately needed some changes).

      3.) I believe a fully centrally planned socialist economy was not possible until the 1970s or maybe even the 1980s. Central planning is more efficient than the free market, but you need the computers and the math behind you. The 60s were a period where you reach a level of significant complexity in the economy but the computer tech and the math just wasn’t there yet to match the task.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        leontief's models are pretty good and they're from the 30s but yeah the economic calculation problem was only recently solved with computers

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      There were many different policies and some of them were just decent while others were fundamentally malignant (and many in between).