If we try to summarize all the actions of the then leader of the state and to find in them the main thing, the main reason for the failure of the reform can be considered conservative.It is manifested in the Nikita Sergeyevich and his entourage.

Khrushchev conceived mass changes he planned to reorganize the economy, to make the economic system a step closer to the market, to pour fresh blood into the party apparatus and to improve the standard of living of the population.However, the liberal goals in sharp contrast to the totalitarian ways of the implementation of reforms.

An excellent example of this
are the changes in the national economy.Trying to get away from the sluggish administrative economic model, Khrushchev was only changed the appearance of the system, not touching its essence."Top" still received "production plans," which had to perform, regardless of the conditions.None of the market mechanism does not actually appear.

Any good initiative taken minutely and radically.This is not only confusing and confusion, but also led to rejection in general population, accustomed to the established order of things.After decades of totalitarianism, the people were not ready for drastic changes imposed.

trying to affect all spheres of life, Khrushchev actually affected and irritated by all segments of the population.The state apparatus afraid of redeployment, business leaders - persistent economic alterations, the intelligentsia - the ideological framework and the working class - the price increases and restrictions on the private sector.Thus, by the mid-60s to the leader managed to completely lose any support.

Perhaps this would not have happened if Khrushchev had not been so rastoropen.Ideas which he tried to implement, were essentially required the state (as already mentioned economic reform).But they are beginning to implement even before the time to think carefully.If change is introduced gradually, it would be left far more room for their timely changes and improvements.