USSR Domestic & International Success

Basically - with a POD no latter than the October Revolution itself, how could the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not only win the Cold War, but also be an internal success - that is to say, much less corruption, world leader in innovation, and have the largest economy (except that it may at least follow China and India if and only if both are allies, but necessarily larger than the USA, Capitalist Europe, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, &c.), have a more or less stable sociopolitics, and a quality of life equal to or greater than any other significantly-sized power.

I think some things the USSR could do for this include: Smaller military, at least after the 1940s; no Great Purge; this would enable it to invade Nazi Germany before it was a serious threat to the USSR (and thus giving it hegemony over at least most of Central Europe); a greater focus on R&D and consumer goods; less dogmatic ideology (for example, no shoving Socialist Realism down people's throats), and correspondingly more social and political liberties. And it is necessary that the Lenin Era-like policies or something equally or more beneficial and enlightened carry on, so Stalin cannot come to power (see Lenin's Last Will and Testament).

Those are my thoughts; what about yours? :)
 

RousseauX

Donor
You need to ditch out OTL Soviet style Communism because of the inherit political and economic issues of a planned economy, so you basically need to arrange the Soviet leadership as accepting the NEP of the 1920s as permanent, and then instead of having Stalin you have someone farsighted enough to build a consumer industry on market basis in the 1930s-1940s.

Even then you need to do significant damage to the US/western Europe like having a Communist/Fascist government take over -there- for the Soviets to pull ahead.
 
You need to ditch out OTL Soviet style Communism because of the inherit political and economic issues of a planned economy, so you basically need to arrange the Soviet leadership as accepting the NEP of the 1920s as permanent, and then instead of having Stalin you have someone farsighted enough to build a consumer industry on market basis in the 1930s-1940s.

Even then you need to do significant damage to the US/western Europe like having a Communist/Fascist government take over -there- for the Soviets to pull ahead.
Why do you say that it's necessary to switch to a market-based economy? I strongly disagree with the idea that the free price system is necessary for a successful and well-developed modern economy or even that the free price system is efficient or for that matter rational in the first place, for the following reasons, among others:

  • The free price system is entirely dependent on what people subjectively want,
  • It provides no means of measuring how useful or necessary a good or service is or how abundant it is. This is why candy can be so overpriced, even though it's often nothing beyond sugar and flavoring.
  • Furthermore, it implies that the supplier and the consumer and are on an equal footing in all manners, which they never really are: If a product is necessary, the consumer will pay more for it, even if it is relatively abundant, as with staple crops or water, if there is a. Likewise, if either the consumer or the supplier has more power, the other is at a disadvantage: This is why I can negotiate a price at the farmer's market but not at my local supermarket, to the point that heirloom tomatoes are cheaper at the former than run-of-the-mill tomatoes at the latter, and despite the fact that the former took more labour to produce, less efficiently!
  • It is theoretically unable to make as efficient usage of information as an organized group of planners theoretically are able to, given that individuals alone, no matter how wise and informed, simply and obviously cannot know as much as a group of equally wise and informed individuals together as a group.
  • It offers no incentive to donate or to volunteer.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Why do you say that it's necessary to switch to a market-based economy? I strongly disagree with the idea that the free price system is necessary for a successful and well-developed modern economy or even that the free price system is efficient or for that matter rational in the first place, for the following reasons, among others:
Because planned economies are sort of good for crash-industrialization and modernization, but inefficient and terrible at running a modernized, industrial/post industrial economy. So basically planned economy works sort of well (but have a lot of baggage attached to it to the point where it's not optimal) in the 1930s but then fails where the USSR was in the 1960s.

[*]The free price system is entirely dependent on what people subjectively want,
[*]It provides no means of measuring how useful or necessary a good or service is or how abundant it is. This is why candy can be so overpriced, even though it's often nothing beyond sugar and flavoring.
Everything is worth what it's buyer paid for, this is one of the greatest advantage of a market economy, precisely because it incentive the production of goods and services that people actually want as oppose to what a bureaucrat in Moscow thinks the people should want.

[*]Furthermore, it implies that the supplier and the consumer and are on an equal footing in all manners, which they never really are: If a product is necessary, the consumer will pay more for it, even if it is relatively abundant, as with staple crops or water, if there is a. Likewise, if either the consumer or the supplier has more power, the other is at a disadvantage: This is why I can negotiate a price at the farmer's market but not at my local supermarket, to the point that heirloom tomatoes are cheaper at the former than run-of-the-mill tomatoes at the latter, and despite the fact that the former took more labour to produce, less efficiently!
Yes and planned economy has the exact same issue only between various economic bureaus, or between agriculture and industry so.........

E: Hell the exact same scenario existed in Communist countries because you still have more bargaining power with the farmer selling you potatoes than the state owned shop selling potatoes for rationing coupons

[*]It is theoretically unable to make as efficient usage of information as an organized group of planners theoretically are able to, given that individuals alone, no matter how wise and informed, simply and obviously cannot know as much as a group of equally wise and informed individuals together as a group.

[/LIST]
In theory yeah a bunch of omnipresent and benevolent planners are probably the best but this doesn't have a very good record in reality because planners are neither omnipresent nor benevolent.

[*]It offers no incentive to donate or to volunteer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

It had an endowment of US$38.3 billion as of 30 June 2013.[3] The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in the philanthrocapitalism revolution in global philanthropy,[6] though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations.[5] In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America, and Warren Buffett the first.[7] As of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation.[8]
 
Last edited:
Because planned economies are sort of good for crash-industrialization and modernization, but inefficient and terrible at running a modernized, industrial/post industrial economy. So basically planned economy works sort of well (but have a lot of baggage attached to it to the point where it's not optimal) in the 1930s but then fails where the USSR was in the 1960s.

Not disagreeing per say, but doesn't China sort of contest the first? Yes, they're state capitalist, but from what I understand they have state capitalist elements.

Everything is worth what it's buyer paid for, this is one of the greatest advantage of a market economy, precisely because it incentive the production of goods and services that people actually want as oppose to what a bureaucrat in Moscow thinks the people should want.

Umm, isn't the first the seller deciding price, dependent on what the buyer will accept?:confused: I'm sorry, maybe I'm not getting what you're saying, but I'm literally talking from a supply/demand perspective here.

Yes and planned economy has the exact same issue only between various economic bureaus, or between agriculture and industry so.........

Do you mean Planned or Command? Soviet Union was a command economy, which is a type of Planned economy, but not the only type, judging by modern day China.

In theory yeah a bunch of omnipresent and benevolent planners are probably the best but this doesn't have a very good record in reality because planners are neither omnipresent nor benevolent.

Not that I'm suggesting this would work, sort of, but, I think you should answer this in advance. What about computers alleviating calculation issues?
 
You need to ditch out OTL Soviet style Communism because of the inherit political and economic issues of a planned economy, so you basically need to arrange the Soviet leadership as accepting the NEP of the 1920s as permanent, and then instead of having Stalin you have someone farsighted enough to build a consumer industry on market basis in the 1930s-1940s.

Its worth noting its not really Soviet style, because Soviets were originally worker councils. A Command Economy is not worker cooperatives running the economy, its the state directing every aspect of it.

Cooperatives themselves, along with state leasing, are ways the Soviet Union can have its cake and eat it too in regards to markets.

Even then you need to do significant damage to the US/western Europe like having a Communist/Fascist government take over -there- for the Soviets to pull ahead.

You pretty much need the U.S. to either balkanize or become Communist, this I agree with.
 
Why do you say that it's necessary to switch to a market-based economy? I strongly disagree with the idea that the free price system is necessary for a successful and well-developed modern economy or even that the free price system is efficient or for that matter rational in the first place, for the following reasons, among others:

  • The free price system is entirely dependent on what people subjectively want,
  • It provides no means of measuring how useful or necessary a good or service is or how abundant it is. This is why candy can be so overpriced, even though it's often nothing beyond sugar and flavoring.
  • Furthermore, it implies that the supplier and the consumer and are on an equal footing in all manners, which they never really are: If a product is necessary, the consumer will pay more for it, even if it is relatively abundant, as with staple crops or water, if there is a. Likewise, if either the consumer or the supplier has more power, the other is at a disadvantage: This is why I can negotiate a price at the farmer's market but not at my local supermarket, to the point that heirloom tomatoes are cheaper at the former than run-of-the-mill tomatoes at the latter, and despite the fact that the former took more labour to produce, less efficiently!
  • It is theoretically unable to make as efficient usage of information as an organized group of planners theoretically are able to, given that individuals alone, no matter how wise and informed, simply and obviously cannot know as much as a group of equally wise and informed individuals together as a group.
  • It offers no incentive to donate or to volunteer.
There's theory, and then there's practice. 'Pure' command economies have a tendency to deter innovation and entrepreneurship, struggle to sustain growth, and are near-invariably bogged down in a morass of corruption and bureaucracy. The old "communism - works only on paper" adage is one of those ancient chestnuts parroted endlessly by radical free marketeers (and people who don't know a lot about Marxism in the first place), but it rings true.
 
Not disagreeing per say, but doesn't China sort of contest the first? Yes, they're state capitalist, but from what I understand they have state capitalist elements.

Well it's not like China is efficient at running its economy, what with it running up large bubbles (currently with housing) which have to be defused at some point or another. Their version of a command economy also requires currency control, which restricts capital inflows/outflows... which is why even though they've made a big show of claiming that Shanghai is a 'global financial center', most of the work is still being done in Hong Kong. Also, the state-owned enterprises are the worst performers in China and they require some pretty blatant protectionism to force out, particularly in the oil sector.

Unless the West collapses the Soviet Union is hardly likely to achieve the domestic and international success OP speaks of. The 'liberties' that you want to see Lenin providing permanently are totally antithetical to his worldview - NEP was there to smooth the way towards true communism, and social and political liberties would just pervert communism and turn it into some bourgeois knockoff.
 
Well it's not like China is efficient at running its economy, what with it running up large bubbles (currently with housing) which have to be defused at some point or another. Their version of a command economy also requires currency control, which restricts capital inflows/outflows... which is why even though they've made a big show of claiming that Shanghai is a 'global financial center', most of the work is still being done in Hong Kong. Also, the state-owned enterprises are the worst performers in China and they require some pretty blatant protectionism to force out, particularly in the oil sector.

Cite the last please, although it wouldn't surprise me per say. This is a critique that would be unique to their economic structure, compared to your others. However, again, citations needed, as that's a pretty bold claim.

For the bubbles, that's hardly unique to China, to put things mildly, hence, I can't really see as a critique unique to their particular economic structure. As for currency control, more iffy, but eh.
 
I'd emphasize on two points: agriculture, and decentralization.

1) Soviet agriculture should have followed the Bukharin model right from the beginning, private ownership and capitalistic practices in agriculture are allowed, with collective farms only where they are profitable and on virgin lands.

2) After the initial "crash industrialization" was over, bulk of the economic decision making should be transfered to the republic\oblast level. The republics/oblasts could decide their own economic policies as long as they transfer a certain amount of income to Moscow. Most of the companies listen to Kiev or Tashkent, other than the Gosplan.
 
Last edited:
I could imagine people like Aleksander Bogdanov (this is the guy who preferred a technocratic USSR, right?), Ivan Smirnov or even Sergei Kirov taking over the USSR and going along with their own plans of economic modernization.
 
I could imagine people like Aleksander Bogdanov (this is the guy who preferred a technocratic USSR, right?), Ivan Smirnov or even Sergei Kirov taking over the USSR and going along with their own plans of economic modernization.

I'm VERY curious about what he would've done. Outright technocracy we've never seen, and would be interesting, to see a TL centric on. Technocrats themselves, when a distinct ideology, I feel like are the radical ideology that never got its day in the sun(perhaps for the better), which is why I've always been curious about TLs featuring them.
 
1) Soviet agriculture should have followed the Bukharin model right from the beginning, private ownership and capitalistic practices in agriculture are allowed, with collective farms only where they are profitable and on virgin lands.

Again, the Soviet Union can have its cake and eat it too here if they use cooperatives. I say this because,

A. Cooperatives are VERY Socialist still, being directly managed by workers, and,

B. They have all the advantages of markets and decentralization without any of the ideological issues.

Hence, have their cake and eat it too.

2) After the initial "crash industrialization" was over, bulk of the economic decision making should be transfered to the republic\oblast level. The republics/oblasts could decide their own economic policies as long as they transfer a certain amount of income to Moscow. Most of the companies listen to Kiev or Tashkent, other than the Gosplan.

This sounds like a good idea, but I'll wait for others to have their say about it.
 
I'm VERY curious about what he would've done. Outright technocracy we've never seen, and would be interesting, to see a TL centric on. Technocrats themselves, when a distinct ideology, I feel like are the radical ideology that never got its day in the sun(perhaps for the better), which is why I've always been curious about TLs featuring them.

A technocratic nation is extremely difficult to create, much less an anarcho-syndicalist one.
 
He was an anarcho-syndicalist?:confused: Huh. Bizarre ideology combination, or were you talking about the other two?

What I meant is that in general technocracy is very hard to achieve in any nation, and anarcho-syndicalism is hard to achieve as well (long term, as Makhno's free territory was short lived), not that Bogdanov was an anarcho-syndicalist. He was too busy getting transfusions to worry about politics though.
 
What I meant is that in general technocracy is very hard to achieve in any nation, and anarcho-syndicalism is hard to achieve as well (long term, as Makhno's free territory was short lived), not that Bogdanov was an anarcho-syndicalist. He was too busy getting transfusions to worry about politics though.

Oh, okay. I see your point there.
 
Cite the last please, although it wouldn't surprise me per say. This is a critique that would be unique to their economic structure, compared to your others. However, again, citations needed, as that's a pretty bold claim.

Well, it's not exactly possible for me to talk much about it since I work in financial analysis, but there's a bit of that in these articles. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/381ba69a-01e3-11e4-bb71-00144feab7de.html#axzz38udN1B6j, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-27/china-profit-rise-masks-state-enterprise-weakness

Then you have the fact that high-tech foreign firms working in China typically form JVs with a state-owned enterprise, with agreements to transfer production technology. The state-owned enterprise then gets the blueprints and then takes separate orders from domestic buyers. It's all in line with China's stated policy of nurturing industrial champions (as with most other East Asian states).

EDIT: You could also look at the a recent news story about Chinese authorities investigating Microsoft and Qualcomm for regulatory offenses, as well as suppressing use of Microsoft products while promoting home-grown COS and Red Flag Linux systems.
 
Top