Ask Lemmygrad

Do remember that Great Man theory and complete disregard for historical materialism are the prime tools of bourgeois propaganda machine called "historiography". And they aren't pulling any punches.

the average person would probably feel discontent with its massive size, while basic goods where rationed

The rationing of goods was very unpopular, as it would be in any country especially when not overtly at war (obviously a ruthless class war was being waged against socialist states by the imperialist camp, but this is not something that is easy for average people to understand and to get behind why they have to make sacrifices). However, the building itself was for the most part and still is today seen as a symbol of national pride. So much so that the bourgeois regime has had to work to depoliticize it, such as by changing the name, to remove the association between it and socialism (without which it could never have been built) and instead turn it into simply a national symbol of Romania.

I've read that a lot of stuff was rationed in an attempt to save as much money as possible in order to pay the IMF loans. So I assume that this was a harsh contradiction at the time.

This is true and there is a legitimate argument that one can make that that was a mistake. On the other hand, the international situation was very unfavorable for any European socialist state in the 80s, with capitalist roaders in power in the USSR undertaking completely destructive economic reforms and more and more embracing liberal ideology even in the political sphere, the ability of the Soviet Union to help even those allies which would have asked for help was severely crippled, and a lot of the socialist camp was left without their biggest source of support. So i can understand why Romania at that time felt it was necessary to try and stand on its own two feet and at least regain its sovereignty by paying off its IMF debt.

If austerity had not been implemented the conditions in the short term would have been better, but for how long without a way to get rid of that IMF debt? We know how subversive IMF debt is, how it forces countries to destroy their state owned sector, liberalize their markets and privatize their economy. The other option would have been to default on the debt but with the rest of the socialist camp turning more and more reformist in the 80s and seeking to integrate into the Western economic sphere, that would also have been very risky and would have had severe repercussions.

I don't know what the right answer would have been, other than not taking that debt on to begin with, but i can understand why the leadership of Romania did what it did at the time. The thinking was that this was a temporary situation and when the debt was paid (which by early 1989 it was, but by then the geopolitical situation for the entire socialist bloc had severely deteriorated thanks to the USSR's chaotic policies) austerity measures could be lifted. In this context the building of the People's House was something like a jobs program.

We could also have a more nuanced discussion about the level of attention paid to agricultural and rural development vs urban and industrial but that gets complicated and i would have to do much more research on the subject, and a huge problem with this entire topic is that so much of the historiography on the subject is written by rabid anti-communists. It's nearly impossible to find objective sources outside of very specialized academic literature.

But the biggest mistake i think was ultimately political, it was underestimating the degree to which the both the party and the upper echelons of the military were still filled with counter-revolutionaries and enemies of socialism. Because ultimately what happened was not a "revolution" as the anti-communist narrative calls it, but a coup. One with significant foreign involvement and which was being planned at least since 1984, with generals now on record admitting to beginning to plot a coup as far back as the 70s.

Here are some good articles about it, written just after it happened:

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/1990/sm900104.html

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/1990/sm900111.html

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/marcy/1990/sm900118.html

Also check out the article i linked here: https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/6109395