Could the USSR work well enought on its orthodox form to be a pleasant place in modern day?

[Gukpard]

So, when we talk about the USSR, the main elephant on the room is not the political repression or the military spending, but usually the planned economy who seems to be something irrational for modern times, so usually any modern USSR scenario has the Soviet Union adopting Chinese like reforms to survive.

There is any way for the Soviet Union work like China, but still keeping the planned economy? I once saw a communist page making the argument that computers could help to facilitate the administration assuming enlight resources have been put on it. What do you think?

 

[Ramontxo]

No, a dictatorship even if it thinks of itself as a benevolent one is always evil

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

No, not without eliminating the gulag system, and the ideology-driven planning that led to Lysenkoism. Nobody can be productive if they are constantly afraid they will be sent to Siberia for political reasons.

 

[garfieldleifrag]

Depends what you mean by "well." The average Soviet citizen in 1980 had a much better standard of living than most of the world (electricity and running water, healthcare, fairly abundant food), but still significantly worse than the USA. For much of its existence, it had a higher rate of economic growth than the USA too. However, I don't think that even in the best-case scenario it would be as rich as the USA by now and political repression would still be a thing, but OTOH without it collapsing living standards in Russia would almost certainly be better than today.

Now, that goes back to the question of its collapse. The issues facing the USSR by the early 80s were considerable, but not insurmountable. One reason I have seen for explaining its collapse was that the CPSU was extremely corrupt by this point, and the party leadership realized they could personally get a lot richer if they sold off all the state-owned industries and pocketed that money for themselves. If that was true, than the USSR surviving would be dependent on corruption not being as bad, which would likely be possible but I'm not sure how far back a POD that would require.

 

[garfieldleifrag]

No, not without eliminating the gulag system, and the ideology-driven planning that led to Lysenkoism. Nobody can be productive if they are constantly afraid they will be sent to Siberia for political reasons.

Both of those were much smaller issues after Stalin died, with the idiotic ban on actual genetics being lifted in the 1960s (and the whole thing being avoidable if Lysenko died younger) and the population in gulags decreasing dramatically after Kruschev took power (although even at its peak, it was far smaller than the current American prison population). The idea of no one being productive is objectively false, as despite the many inefficiencies of the Soviet system it had more economic growth than the United States for most of its existence.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Lysenkoism wasn't removed until the Brezhnev era, by which time the USSR was having to import grain from the US. If they had implemented glasnost and perestroika right then, say in 1970, maybe they could have transitioned to a China-like state; but that wasn't on the table.

 

[Johnrankins]

Both of those were much smaller issues after Stalin died, with the idiotic ban on actual genetics being lifted in the 1960s (and the whole thing being avoidable if Lysenko died younger) and the population in gulags decreasing dramatically after Kruschev took power (although even at its peak, it was far smaller than the current American prison population). The idea of no one being productive is objectively false, as despite the many inefficiencies of the Soviet system it had more economic growth than the United States for most of its existence.

Not really, in the 1920s it had lower growth, in the 1930s what growth was mostly due to starving its farmers which cost it more in the long run, in the 1940s it had lower growth, in the 1950's it was merely rebuilding from WW2 getting back where it started around 1962 or so, in the 1970s and 1980s it was lower.

 

[Mynock]

Work well compared to who I think is the question. Compared to present day Syria for example, it would probably be great. Compared to present day America, it probably wouldn't be all too good. I think its easy enough to envision it pulling through the crisis' of the late '80s/early '90s in some form or another.

 

[Aber]

There is any way for the Soviet Union work like China, but still keeping the planned economy? I once saw a communist page making the argument that computers could help to facilitate the administration assuming enlight resources have been put on it. What do you think?

No.

You can plan for quantity, but quality is another matter, esp for consumable items. The USSR informal markets included people selling dead lightbulbs. Why? So you could take them to work to replace live ones. You then take them home, because you couldn't buy new lightbulbs in the shops. And the reason there were no lightbulbs in the shops was because actual bulblife was shorter than the planning norms, and so fewer were produced than needed. Factory quality was lower than assumed in planning (perhaps because the raw materials they got were lower quality than specified) etc etc.

Which bit of this do you fix first and how?

 

[Sam R.]

No, a dictatorship even if it thinks of itself as a benevolent one is always evil

Thank you for telling me entirely about your morality and nothing about Soviet history. It’s a good morality. It’s entirely disconnected to the contents of the documentary record of the past.

the party leadership realized they could personally get a lot richer if they sold off all the state-owned industries and pocketed that money for themselves. If that was true, than the USSR surviving would be dependent on corruption not being as bad

No. It’d be dependent on the nomenklatura not selling themselves formally “social” property which was actually collective capital controlled (ie owned) by themselves. They wouldn’t do this if 1) the capital was more profitable as is or 2) they’d be hung with their own intestines if they tried it. To solve 2) you need a Soviet working class with the mentality of 1956s era. My go to for this is a semi failed 3rd revolution in the Soviet Union, Mikoyan normally rides the tiger for me. But a failed Dubcek reform in the Soviet Union would also work. These increase labour productivity by causing greater buy in and more social capital under prole influence. The bad bulb life gets fed up the chain. Bulb workers work better. Bad bulb managers get sent to a fish gutting plant in Kygristan. Option 1 we will deal with below.

no one being productive is objectively false, as despite the many inefficiencies of the Soviet system it had more economic growth than the United States for most of its existence.

The Soviet nomenklatura bought fewer yachts and diamonds. They systematically reinvested profit at a higher rate than western capital blocs. This meant they were investing in below rate of profit industries (not a bad thing when you’re under capitalised). The two causes of lower than expectable capital profitability were poor plan implementation and local productivity resistance. For the former hand out more yachts and diamonds through firm level profits. For the latter: Soviet Fordism had developed one of the most successful working class resistances in the world: note not proletarian. The Soviet working class was incapable of organisationally imagining its own liberation (compare Hot Autumn Italy, period of unrestrained wages and prices growth Australia, winter of discontent UK). With no possibility of freedom the Soviet worker perfected “they pretend to pay me, I pretend to work.” Except in military industries.

I do not know why military labour discipline was not capable of being generalised.

so Soviet 56 or Soviet 68 are as nice as a very poor Scandic country. Complete with a hidden bourgeoisie who pretends to not run everything.

the other option needs work on “breaking” labour resistance being cheaper than privatising the factory welfare system and all capital.

 

[CalBear]

Not a chance. The Soviet system was incredibly flawed, even as a mere planned economy, much less as an overall governing entity. The Soviets, thanks to remarkable mismanagement, managed to fail at the one thing it strove to be, a great industrial power. The failures of the goverment created a shadow economy that was, in many ways, better than the official one, albeit incredible corrupt.

Probably the best proof of this is that todays Russian Federation is STILL a crippled economy, despite foreign investment and nominally capitalist policies. .

 

[Gukpard]

Depends what you mean by "well." The average Soviet citizen in 1980 had a much better standard of living than most of the world (electricity and running water, healthcare, fairly abundant food), but still significantly worse than the USA. For much of its existence, it had a higher rate of economic growth than the USA too. However, I don't think that even in the best-case scenario it would be as rich as the USA by now and political repression would still be a thing, but OTOH without it collapsing living standards in Russia would almost certainly be better than today.

Now, that goes back to the question of its collapse. The issues facing the USSR by the early 80s were considerable, but not insurmountable. One reason I have seen for explaining its collapse was that the CPSU was extremely corrupt by this point, and the party leadership realized they could personally get a lot richer if they sold off all the state-owned industries and pocketed that money for themselves. If that was true, than the USSR surviving would be dependent on corruption not being as bad, which would likely be possible but I'm not sure how far back a POD that would require.

The idea is that the people live on a standard of maybe a Latin American middle class and there is optimism for the future. Every Soviet citizen should have a car, two computers by family and not suffer from famine.

 

[King Augeas]

It's the incentives for corruption that are the long-term killer. This is probably true everywhere, not just the USSR. Where people see the opportunity for personal profit by bypassing "the rules", you'll get corruption, because we're only human.

 

[garfieldleifrag]

The idea is that the people live on a standard of maybe a Latin American middle class and there is optimism for the future. Every Soviet citizen should have a car, two computers by family and not suffer from famine.

The last part was true even OTL after 1947 (when the last major famine ended), by the 1960s the average Soviet citizen was consuming more calories a day than the average person in Western Europe (although it wasn't amazing quality). You might be able to give everyone who wants one a car by now (even if it was a shitty one), but I doubt you would have 2 good computers per family (unless you had a really far back POD like Germany also going communist in 1918, in which case they start off with a much larger industrial base, avoid most famines and WWII, ect.).

 

[Gukpard]

The last part was true even OTL after 1947 (when the last major famine ended), by the 1960s the average Soviet citizen was consuming more calories a day than the average person in Western Europe (although it wasn't amazing quality). You might be able to give everyone who wants one a car by now (even if it was a shitty one), but I doubt you would have 2 good computers per family (unless you had a really far back POD like Germany also going communist in 1918, in which case they start off with a much larger industrial base, avoid most famines and WWII, ect.).

I see. How they could avoided the shortages? With computers?

 

[garfieldleifrag]

I see. How they could avoided the shortages? With computers?

If nothing else, they started off poorer than the United States, and have a ways to catch up. There were substantial inefficiencies inherent to their economic system (although the same is true for free markets). Unless you have a very far back POD, probably before WWII at the latest, I highly doubt the USSR would be as rich as the USA today under any realistic scenario. Computers would likely help with central planning, but they would not be a perfect solution, and OTL most of the Soviet leadership was strongly distrustful of cybernetic planning.

 

[Gukpard]

If nothing else, they started off poorer than the United States, and have a ways to catch up. There were substantial inefficiencies inherent to their economic system (although the same is true for free markets). Unless you have a very far back POD, probably before WWII at the latest, I highly doubt the USSR would be as rich as the USA today under any realistic scenario. Computers would likely help with central planning, but they would not be a perfect solution, and OTL most of the Soviet leadership was strongly distrustful of cybernetic planning.

Someone who liked it was Khruschev. Maybe we keep him until he retired and get the krhuschevites to remain in power up to modern day.

 

[AdA]

No.
Marxism is old. It was developed before modern social science and placed way to much emphasis on economical factors. Marxism assumes that if you change the way the economy is organised the way people think, feel and act will adjust more or less automatically and they will become happy, well adjusted communist "new men" almost overnight.
Marxism should have incorporated elements from sociology and psicology in the early 1900s and evolved. Instead it infiltrated them to produce Marxist versions that followed Marxist logic more than reality. When people failed to change after the revolution communism was doomed.
Within 1850s knowledge Marxism was brilliant. But it's assumptions on the evolution of societies where based on speculation not science and too simplistic.

 

[CalBear]

The idea is that the people live on a standard of maybe a Latin American middle class and there is optimism for the future. Every Soviet citizen should have a car, two computers by family and not suffer from famine.

Hell, there are LOTS of families in the "1st World" that can't claim all of that.

I do sort of like that the traditional "Chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage" has been replaced by a car and two computers.

The last part was true even OTL after 1947 (when the last major famine ended), by the 1960s the average Soviet citizen was consuming more calories a day than the average person in Western Europe (although it wasn't amazing quality). You might be able to give everyone who wants one a car by now (even if it was a shitty one), but I doubt you would have 2 good computers per family (unless you had a really far back POD like Germany also going communist in 1918, in which case they start off with a much larger industrial base, avoid most famines and WWII, ect.).

Calories sure. There are 1,000 calories in a liters of Vodka. A good number of Soviet adults were knocking back more than that every day.

 

[Gukpard]

Hell, there are LOTS of families in the "1st World" that can't claim all of that.

I do sort of like that the traditional "Chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage" has been replaced by a car and two computers.


Calories sure. There are 1,000 calories in a liters of Vodka. A good number of Soviet adults were knocking back more than that every day.

Well, the Brazilian middle class can.

The problem is that the Brazilian middle class is very, very small.

Cant the planned economy allow them to flood the market with low quality computers?