Keep reading! It’s in good faith. There were real economic problems from perverse incentives that should be reckoned with in future socialist programs. Like, yeah, making bread cheaper than animal feed is going to lead to some farmers feeding their animals bread. Abundance of some products is going to make people less careful with these (I believe he discusses running the heat on maximum with the windows open and throwing out slightly broken stuff to get a new cheap one). Subsidizing low productivity factories and increasing the quotas on productive ones is going to make people upset and resentful.
Over this chapter and subsequent ones, he makes two excellent points: 1. they still largely managed to meet and exceed human needs even with these inefficiencies and problems, and 2. these problems are nothing compared to what came after the collapse of the USSR.
Are_Euclidding_Me hit the nail on the head, many of the critiques of the harshness and centralized control fail to appreciate the siege that the USSR was under. Had they had the luxury of being able to pursue a gentler, more liberal path, there is every reason to believe they would have. That was not their circumstance however, and they correctly deduced that rapid industrialization and upheaval of life was going to be necessary to fight for their survival.
On top of that though, there are unforced errors as well in Soviet society, some of which are cultural holdovers from a conservative populace and leaders, and some of which are mistakes of their very own. Parenti isn’t a hagiographer, he discusses very real problems so that they can be considered and avoided by future generations. “Stalin Bad” is a manta for liberals, “how did Stalin err and why, and how might we learn from it” is the question for comrades. Correctly filing historical figures under the “good” or “bad” heading is not a useful pursuit