Imagine a USSR where consumer products kept up with the West's. How would that work? Maybe it's like analogous to Eisenhower trimming the defense budget.
What if Stalin dedicated the postwar Soviet economy to soft industry instead of hard?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Strauss in Soviet Russia: Anatomy of a Social History using Soviet supplied data finds that consumer production lagged behind in planning and lagged behind in execution of the plan. Real wages were pegged against 1913 levels, with the growth being analogous to the growth in the soviet urban proletariat. He also finds that recapitalisation through heavy industry that should have occurred didn't: much of the plan was "black" and supporting military production.
Whether this is good or bad, as Strauss points out, it probably isn't the behaviour of a proletarian revolutionary society to conceal from itself that it was planning for war.
The problem with shifting from a peace time war focused economy to a consumer economy would cause ructions within the nomenklatura equivalent to the ructions caused in the switch to five year plans. It would also change the balance of class forces between the nomenklatura and the urban proletariat, and (probably due to flow on) the nomenklatura and the new post-collectivisation rural proletariat. Given the tenuousness of their hold on power, this would be a brave act by the soviet ruling class.
It would also involve a disruption in the composition of the Soviet urban proletariat equivalent to the disruption of the 1930s, as different kinds of labour discipline would be imposed. In particular, the slack versus piece-work norm would have to dissolve, as this dialectical relationship imposed quality limits and a pulsing production cycle based around monthly reporting dates. Replacing it with a consumer goods relationship would be difficult: soviet control over workers was based around factory supply of social democratic living conditions. The status of trade union apparatchiks and managerial nomenklatura in their positions would be threatened by a shift to shop distribution.
On the other hand Strauss shows a tendency towards normalisation of market wage relations over the five year plan period, other than for Stakhanovites who we should really consider as nomenklatura. Access to particular industry based quotas or rations degraded. So there is an openness to reproducing soviet value through commodity realisation. On the other hand, in the 1930s this was used to lower the wages of the unified factory and stratify the working class. Doesn't seem to be a need post 1945 in doing this.
yours,
Sam.
Whether this is good or bad, as Strauss points out, it probably isn't the behaviour of a proletarian revolutionary society to conceal from itself that it was planning for war.
The problem with shifting from a peace time war focused economy to a consumer economy would cause ructions within the nomenklatura equivalent to the ructions caused in the switch to five year plans. It would also change the balance of class forces between the nomenklatura and the urban proletariat, and (probably due to flow on) the nomenklatura and the new post-collectivisation rural proletariat. Given the tenuousness of their hold on power, this would be a brave act by the soviet ruling class.
It would also involve a disruption in the composition of the Soviet urban proletariat equivalent to the disruption of the 1930s, as different kinds of labour discipline would be imposed. In particular, the slack versus piece-work norm would have to dissolve, as this dialectical relationship imposed quality limits and a pulsing production cycle based around monthly reporting dates. Replacing it with a consumer goods relationship would be difficult: soviet control over workers was based around factory supply of social democratic living conditions. The status of trade union apparatchiks and managerial nomenklatura in their positions would be threatened by a shift to shop distribution.
On the other hand Strauss shows a tendency towards normalisation of market wage relations over the five year plan period, other than for Stakhanovites who we should really consider as nomenklatura. Access to particular industry based quotas or rations degraded. So there is an openness to reproducing soviet value through commodity realisation. On the other hand, in the 1930s this was used to lower the wages of the unified factory and stratify the working class. Doesn't seem to be a need post 1945 in doing this.
yours,
Sam.
There's a reason he called himself "Stal"in. Heavy industry was THE measure of a nation's strength (especially then). So, to focus on light industry, he has to do one of a few things 1) concede that the West won; 2) declare "Mission accomplished", and claim the Soviets won the Cold War; or 3) umm... I can't think of a 3)
1) no way on the face of this earth.
2) bloody unlikely
edit:
besides, 5 year plans were a total disaster with consumer goods. The story of a boot factory meeting quota by manufacturing only left boots may be apocryphal, but it is exactly what the Soviet system (indirectly) encouraged.
Well, I mean, what if Stalin was succeeded by people who had different ideas from him. Suppose he dies after Potsdam?
Still, why does any Communist leader surrender to the West, which is what this amounts to?
Unless the Soviets abandon Communism, somehow.
But it wasn't China that was the US's existential foe (and vice versa).
I think it would be feasible for a post Stalin leader, especially Kruschev (whom had a positive enough opinion of the west at times to the extent that he protested when he wasn't allowed to go to Disney world during his trip to the US because the Secret Service said he'd get assassinated, screaming "If you came to Moscow I'd show you Mouse Mickey!" Due to that being Russian word order) To make a slow transition to this route say if the nuclear treaty Eisenhower(I think) ended up screwing up by approving one last spy plane to fly over Russia before the conference (Geneva?), which crashed and caused an international incident? We abort the Cold War as the words of a crazy dictator and Russia ends up doing what China did just over 10-20 years or probably longer. In this timeline though I wouldn't expect the cold war to be notable even in recent history, unless textbooks included western intervention and mid-war tensions unlike most actually do. Also, less western fear over communism at least longterm, since it was a violent threat really only during Stalins reign. States become willing to do less radical versions with individual policies over time instead of rebolutionary sweeps, because of less widespread fear of socialism and communism due to being presented them peacefully? I'd argue that kinda happened otl, socialism isn't a bad word to a lot of people in NY, though it's not something you wanna preach publicly. Also doesn't Bernie Sanders identify as Socialist? That'd never happen 40 years ago!
No red scare=America looking more like Europe? Would it be more like Britain's labour party or Scandinavia by the 2000's? They would still be slow to implement according to America's history and precendets, but with the USSR a peaceful trading partner, I still expect most Americans would treat their ideas only as weird as any other foreign county's as soon as another rival appears. China? Not as early as Kruschev. Does anyone else think NATO would have a terminal existential crisis without the threat of the USSR that early into its existance?
No red scare=America looking more like Europe? Would it be more like Britain's labour party or Scandinavia by the 2000's? They would still be slow to implement according to America's history and precendets, but with the USSR a peaceful trading partner, I still expect most Americans would treat their ideas only as weird as any other foreign county's as soon as another rival appears. China? Not as early as Kruschev. Does anyone else think NATO would have a terminal existential crisis without the threat of the USSR that early into its existance?
Last edited:
That Stalin push for Heavy Industry had simple reason, the post war USSR lagged behind the USA and Other industrial nation.
Some analyst claim the Soviet union were lagging 10~20 year behind in economics and Technology, compare to the post war USA.
(This not include the German War Technology input after 1945)
Some analyst claim the Soviet union were lagging 10~20 year behind in economics and Technology, compare to the post war USA.
(This not include the German War Technology input after 1945)
dissentcontinues
Banned
Apparently Beria wanted to do just that in his post war post slipping Stalin warfarin leader in the troika period. I don't know how it would've worked, but he wanted less cold war and some internal reforms and more consumer goods, standard of living type stuff. But...the whole murderous sleazeball thing kinda works against him even if he doesn't have Nikita picking fleas in his trousers and having Zhukov escort him to be framed for being a British spy, something he didn't do, among many horrible things he did do.
What if conversely the West begins to heavily militarise? The NATO countries begin to adopt conscription, increase in military budget, etc. The military budget and heavier taxation leads to worser lives if the citizens, leading to strong protest, leading to more militarisation, etc.
tenthring
Banned
Command economies are famously bad at consumer products, especially as they get more and more niche. Focusing on big ticket mass production at least makes the calculation problem slightly less bad.
One of the big issues is your always looking at the capitalist economies to figure out what to make next and what it should cost, since your own economy doesn't have good ways of figuring that out. At best you can go, "let's make that thing they are making," and then plow into it full bore cause, you know, you can tell your slaves to do whatever.
One of the big issues is your always looking at the capitalist economies to figure out what to make next and what it should cost, since your own economy doesn't have good ways of figuring that out. At best you can go, "let's make that thing they are making," and then plow into it full bore cause, you know, you can tell your slaves to do whatever.