askchapo

Yes but the scale of what's needed and why is very different compared to everyday people in hundreds of thousands of jobs finding direct and obvious benefits in their day to day jobs in a capitalist market driven economy.

Not sure what you mean there.

Not to mention that the capitalist class itself were the ones directly doing calculations that could see the benefit of computerising what they do every day.

The same applies to the calculations done by various economic leadership figures (from local factory managers to the union government figures), so this does not seem to be a factor.

What I'm saying is that the forces driving a socialist economy towards it were smaller than the forces driving the capitalist economy towards it due to the sheer number of people that could see the benefits of computers in the west compared to the significantly smaller number of people that could see the direct benefits in the socialist economy.

And I don't see how that could be the reason for that.
This explanation especially doesn't seem to work when we consider that most of the capitalist world wasn't any more successful in adopting computers than the USSR.
The much more significant factors seem to be colonial plunder of the world by the imperial core, induction of brain drain in favour of electronics R&D in the imperial core, and the USSR's liberalisation reforms that led to the stifling of industrial innovation.

Many thousands of finance people vs only scientists, r+d, leadership and so on.

How were the 'finance people' that were not in leading positions any different from bookkeepers in the USSR in this context?

This isn't a value judgement against socialist economy either.

I do understand that.
I do, however, think that that explanation does not have a good basis, and am pointing that out.