Nothing. That is, doing nothing is what made him a revisionist. He didn't undo Khrushchev's policies either on the economic side (at least not sufficiently) or on the political side (no rehabilitation of Stalin).

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 months ago

exactly right

[–] Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

He was just kind of bad at management. He didn't see the importance of computers and didn't have good policies to reverse the stagnation.

[–] Rextreff@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Didn't USSR have like 5% GDP growth per annum during the Brezhnev stagnation? (not that GDP is really an important economic indicator)

[–] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago

I read that alot of Brezhnev's policies were a return of capitalist elements, such as allowing economic enterprises to "fail" if they were unprofitable and making housing more market-like.

In a vacuum, I don't like these policies, but maybe they make more sense in context, I'm not sure. I know some limited reforms in the housing market were helpful.