Could the Soviet Union have survived?

[Mackereldude]

Do you think that the Soviet Union could have not collapsed if they did things differently, such as changing the ways of their failing economy or the August Coup succeded.

If they did survive as a union do you think it possibly could have continued the Cold War or politics could have changed and the United States and the Soviet Union could have co-existed?

[The Red]

The US and the Soviet Union did co-exist, hence why it was a Cold War.

But yeah, there are several PoD's which could prevent it's collapse.

[Saladan]

Honestly I actually doubt that. One thread went into greater details about why but I'll try to remember what I can.

Basically the problem is that by the time the various reformers in the late 80's/early 90's come around to really fix the USSR, it's already too far gone at that point. All the decades of false quota reports and other false economic data along with the usual government corruption, and just the sheer decay of the whole system has by that point in time built up to the point of being just plain gone. It would be like trying to polish a tooth that needs a root canal.

You need to go far back to fix the system. Khrushchev might be able to help stem all said problems but it still doesn't fix the institutionalized corruption plaguing the USSR and any reforms he had made are just going to be undone by whatever later successor of his.

Honestly I think you going to have to go all the way back to Lenin himself and get rid of both Trotsky and Stalin (Trotsky was a equally tyrannical backstabbing megalomaniac, only he would have the USSR invade Europe when it was in no way shape or form even remotly capable of doing so. All he would have accomplished was the earlier collapse of the USSR) and have Lenin keep the NEP and make it the official policy of the USSR from then on out.

[Tsochar]

As long as the Soviet Union continued to attempt any sort of planned economy, it was doomed to fail. Planned economies can only work as intended with perfect information, which is not possible in the real world.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Tsochar

Planned economies can only work as intended with perfect information, which is not possible.

Define the difference between an economy which 'works' and one which doesn't.

[Glass Onion]

A USSR might have seen 1992. The 1991 New Union Treaty came awfully close to being signed, and if you either prevent or delay the coup, it probably would be. Now it is an open question how long the new USSR would have lasted. And in any event it would have been a different beast from the USSR that had existed up until that point. There is a strong possibility that having that treaty successfully implemented only delays the inevitable. But my sense is that it would at least delay the collapse somewhat.

[Andre27]

Originally Posted by Mackereldude

Do you think that the Soviet Union could have not collapsed if they did things differently, such as changing the ways of their failing economy or the August Coup succeded.

If they did survive as a union do you think it possibly could have continued the Cold War or politics could have changed and the United States and the Soviet Union could have co-existed?

The USSR did survive. Don't believe me? Just look who's on the throne in Russia nowadays.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by Andre27

The USSR did survive. Don't believe me? Just look who's on the throne in Russia nowadays.

Seems more fascist than communist, really.

[Sean Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Tsochar

As long as the Soviet Union continued to attempt any sort of planned economy, it was doomed to fail. Planned economies can only work as intended with perfect information, which is not possible in the real world.

If thats so then why did the Soviet the Soviet economy show steady growth from the 1930's through the 1980's with the first economic decline except for World War II being in 1990 or 1991 ? Their was a steady increase in personal per capita and national income steadily increased in the decades before Gorbachev.

[Sean Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Andre27

The USSR did survive. Don't believe me? Just look who's on the throne in Russia nowadays.

I don't see how Putin is evidence of the survival of the USSR?

[Killer300]

"Rise from your grave!"

Sorry, but this thread is actually quite common, albeit in different forms.

Also though, for all of you thinking of liberalization, you need to get justifications to match issues addressed in this thread.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=243570

For those claiming planned economics is doomed... look at China. China is still planned, yet it has managed to be quite the economic superpower, and it's actually BECAUSE not despite the planned nature of it.

Now, is a Command Economy screwed? Yes, however that's a completely different can of worms. It would be like saying all types of capitalism are screwed based on shock economics in the 1990s.

[Tsochar]

Originally Posted by The Red

Define the difference between an economy which 'works' and one which doesn't.

As intended. In this case, the Soviet planned economy was intended to achieve 100% employment, eliminate economic shocks, and increase output to a certain level in each industry as decided by the State at the beginning of each five-year plan. While everyone in the USSR was technically employed, misappropriation of funds caused drastic deficits in productivity in certain areas. Since managers were punished for failing to meet quotas, many instead lied about reaching them and spoofed their stocks for audits. This information became part of the basis for the next plan. Any system that works on faulty information, in anything, is going to be faulty. Garbage in, garbage out. Even if it's faulty, it can continue to function at a reduced capacity in this case, all the while causing more inefficiency and waste.
It's well-established that economies grow approximately exponentially. Errors in planning, if not corrected for, will likely grow exponentially as well. This causes the long-term deterioration of the system.
Additionally, planned economies cannot act on unanticipated events such as the introduction of new technologies and shifts in the global market. This feeds into the perfect information problem and furthermore introduces a delayed response, which fundamentally disadvantages it in comparison to a market economy.
Planned economies have enjoyed limited success in just about every country they have been tried. Most of them switched to market economies and did much better after the transition. Command economies today include Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and Belarus; the only one that is doing well economically is the one with massive amounts of oil and a market to supplement it.

[Tsochar]

Originally Posted by Sean Mulligan

If thats so then why did the Soviet the Soviet economy show steady growth from the 1930's through the 1980's with the first economic decline except for World War II being in 1990 or 1991 ? Their was a steady increase in personal per capita and national income steadily increased in the decades before Gorbachev.

The USSR economy was boosted by the initial industrial push from 1923-1939; even so, problems with the system began to arise in the early '30s. After the war, a great deal of rebuilding took place, which increased its growth further. Stagnation began in the 1970s.

[Killer300]

Tsochar, say COMMAND economics. It's an important difference which many people don't take into account, namely because Planned is actually quite common.

For one, South Korea actually got its economic success from a 5 YEAR PLAN that was successful. China got its economic success from successfully integrating markets into a planned economy.

Again, you can't judge planned economies by their command versions. That would be like judging Capitalism by the shock economic experiments of the 1990s.

[Snake Featherston]

With PODs that shorten WWII's length and sheer devastation in terms of casualty tolls? Yes, it could last longer. Otherwise? Not necessarily, as sooner or later the USSR was going to overextend itself running a global empire with a command economy. The Soviet Union had a relative advantage in WWII, but after that it degenerated into a state with a formidable army and an increasingly decaying economy.

The USSR inherited from Stalin a system rife with fraud and redunancy of a dangerous and ultimately ossifying sort. To change that for the better, WWII needs to go smoother *and* Stalin needs to kick the bucket after the Soviets have consolidated their empire but before the Great Terror gets extended there. Leaving Stalin a hero, his crimes before WWII forgotten, and the USSR with somewhat more room to respond to the world than the escalation of Stalinism post-WWII gave it.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Tsochar

As long as the Soviet Union continued to attempt any sort of planned economy, it was doomed to fail. Planned economies can only work as intended with perfect information, which is not possible in the real world.

I would dispute that for one reason: the USSR of OTL had neighbors intent on invading it whose economic systems were even worse than its none too efficient system. In any TL with Adolf Hitler the USSR is guaranteed to have Hitler as a springboard to global expansion because Der Fuhrer will alienate everyone who might be remotely friendly and the Soviets will be the lesser evil by comparison. In a TL without him, the USSR will lack the damage of WWII and thus have a different chance to survive and ultimately expand anyway when de-colonization starts as it inevitably will regardless due to the India Act of 1935. Albeit that's not quite the USSR of OTL and it would be very alien to the OTL one.

[Tsochar]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Tsochar, say COMMAND economics. It's an important difference which many people don't take into account, namely because Planned is actually quite common.

For one, South Korea actually got its economic success from a 5 YEAR PLAN that was successful. China got its economic success from successfully integrating markets into a planned economy.

Again, you can't judge planned economies by their command versions. That would be like judging Capitalism by the shock economic experiments of the 1990s.

You're right. I realized in the middle of dinner that I was using the wrong term and came to correct myself.

I guess I was thrown off by all the USSR's five-year plans.

[Saladan]

Personally I've always felt that the biggest problem for the soviets was more political then economic.

[B_Munro]

Anyhoo, a sufficiently repressive state can survive a long time with a disfunctional economy, as long as the leadership keeps the correct elites paid off. As long as things don't reach mass-killings-of-starving-civilians level, a largely non-reforming Soviet Union could probably stagger along a couple more decades through tightening the screws, although the end would surely come eventually (and quite likely more messily than OTL).

Bruce

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Saladan

Personally I've always felt that the biggest problem for the soviets was more political then economic.

Well, if they had a different political system, they probably would have had a different economic system, to boot...

Bruce