See discussion question below from Professor Guinevere Liberty Nell.


Contributed Content (0)

Ask a Question

Show 1 Answer (Ryan Heerwagen's answer approved by Guinevere Liberty Nell)
user's picture

The presence of existing centralization made it easier and more desirable for leadership so speed up nationalization. Political opposition encouraged leadership to slow it down. The functionality of the system does not appear to be a factor given that currency destabilization resulting from earlier rationing and provision of free services did not provide an incentive.

This would tend to suggest that, at least in part, the goals of these leaders was not pragmatic(maximizing output, maximizing human welfare) so much as ideological(achieve the dictatorship).

user's picture

Good points - and roughly true for this period. Although currency destabilization and planning issues (such as those caused by wages policies of the early 20s) did lead the leadership to u-turn or repeal certain policies. There were strategic privatizations (and allowance of private land plots) later, at various points, made out of urgency and due to shortages or stagnation. Over all though, I think you are correct.

Guinevere Liberty Nell approved 1 year 10 months ago.
Please register or login to answer a question
user's picture
Please register or login to ask a question