Challange: The U.S.S.R System succedes

[freethinker]

Is it possible that under a longer Krustev Administration that the U.S.S.R could survive and even make prosperity?

[TheKinkster]

About as possible as you writing a grammatically correct, correctly-spelled sentence in the English language?

Spell check is your friend .

[Warsie]

lolololol.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by freethinker

Is it possible that under a longer Krustev Administration that the U.S.S.R could survive and even make prosperity?

That's a very broad and open-ended question. Could you tighten it up a bit; perhaps something like, "Would a longer lasting and more prosperous USSR have resulted if Kruschev had not been forced into retirement and accomplished "X" and "Y" (ie. reforms/programs he sought to implement)? or "What might the mid to late 1960s USSR be like under the leadership of Kruschev."

[Paul V McNutt]

I think the best way for the Soviet Union to survive is to use the Chinese model. Keep the repressive government and introduce free enterprise.

[Ian the Admin]

Originally Posted by TheKinkster

About as possible as you writing a grammatically correct, correctly-spelled sentence in the English language?

Spell check is your friend .

Do not insult people with spelling flames.

[Emperor Norton I]

Kruschev is a mixed bag. On the one hand, he was putting in place reforms and attempting reforms, which is good. On the other, he was kinda a meat head and an embarrassment to the Soviets, and a lot of his reforms failed or didn't meet up to expectations. And that's why he was removed.

[freethinker]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

I think the best way for the Soviet Union to survive is to use the Chinese model. Keep the repressive government and introduce free enterprise.

I would call that a failure because that would be a capitalist/fascist dictatorship.

[Nassirisimo]

I think whats needed is gradual reforms, with economic coming before political reforms. There is no need to get rid of the socialist system entirely, but huge reforms are needed. Collectivisation needs to be scrapped, as it was ruining the efficiency of the Soviet agricultural sector. A limited amount of private initiative also has to be allowed, with small businesses and such. A way to make production a bit more responsive to demand would be useful too, and might be helped by more openness in the government and freedom of expression.

[Killer300]

Why not more worker management? That's much more in line with Socialist ideals than traditional small businesses, and arguably central planning. They could use Yugoslavia as a model in some ways for that. Only reason they didn't perhaps was it would loosen government control more than traditional businesses.

[freethinker]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Why not more worker management? That's much more in line with Socialist ideals than traditional small businesses, and arguably central planning. They could use Yugoslavia as a model in some ways for that. Only reason they didn't perhaps was it would loosen government control more than traditional businesses.

How would that work exactly?

[Nassirisimo]

Originally Posted by freethinker

How would that work exactly?

I second this. The most important thing in making the system succeed is to make the economy a bit more responsive to the demands of people, and to boost productivity, and I don't really see how this will do it. Using a system that incorporated entrepreneurial energy but without the negative effects that come from large corporations would be the most beneficial for the USSR, whilst still keeping large state-owned or setting up worker-owned industries where the demand is more static.

[freethinker]

Originally Posted by Nassirisimo

I second this. The most important thing in making the system succeed is to make the economy a bit more responsive to the demands of people, and to boost productivity, and I don't really see how this will do it. Using a system that incorporated entrepreneurial energy but without the negative effects that come from large corporations would be the most beneficial for the USSR, whilst still keeping large state-owned or setting up worker-owned industries where the demand is more static.

The Soviet System might have lasted longer if it had been run more effectively

[Killer300]

Worker Managment can work in a number of ways, the most common being cooperatives.
Here's an example today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag...ve_Corporation

[Jello_Biafra]

Originally Posted by freethinker

How would that work exactly?

This is a pretty good summary on how such an economy works

[Killer300]

Thanks. More people need to know about this type of economics.

[freethinker]

Thanks ... I do need to learn more about this

[Snake Featherston]

No. The POD would have to be a lot further back than that. Perhaps a Bukharinite faction takes control, perpetuates the NEP, establishes ties with the Allies and thereby castrates German re-armament and enabling the USSR to build forces openly and thus you get a USSR that's more democratic, more populous, less overly militarized and militarily powerful but not diplomatically isolated and a WWII is averted scenario.

[Killer300]

There are many ways the SU you could've succeeded in that time frame, which I won't get into.

As for later, if they implemented worker management style reforms, the economy would improve significantly, but so would calls for democracy. It wouldn't save the SU perhaps, but it would definitely extend its lifespan.