WI: Kruschev did reforms?

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What if Kruschev had completely reformed the USSR, removing all of the things that pulled the Soviets back such as ridiculous planned economy, too much bureaucracy, corruption... Without being couped
Basically an alternative Soviet Union which has already removed the most important of his issues and therefore doesn't need to reform under Andropov and Gorbachev.

 

[RedSword12]

It would be extremely difficult to do this without getting overthrown, and that's an understatement. Especially the part about the planned economy, which many would see as a betrayal of the revolution.

That said, if we accept that Kruschev against the odds somehow manages to pull it off, the Soviet Union is in a much stronger position in the long run. That said, I think we would need a lot more policy details to have a decent idea of what it would look like.

 

[Initium Sapientiæ]

I'm not sure it's particularly convincing to claim that the "ridiculous" planned economy actually did hold the Soviets back during that time period.

For a short time, the USSR was actually more advanced in microelectronics than the US, and let's not forget that they won every single battle of the space race bar the moon landing. Let's also not forget they transformed from a feudal backwater to a major power capable of defeating Europe's largest army in the space of a few short decades - all under the supposedly ridiculous planned economy. Yes, it ultimately failed, but it was doing pretty well in the international comparison throughout the 50s and 60s. The first signs of economic stagnation/collapse didn't really start appearing until the late 70s.

Either way, the same thing would've happened that happened under Gorbachev, just 3-4 decades sooner. Mass unemployment, poverty, socio-economic collapse. A brief window of vaguely functional democracy which would be quickly replaced by an oligarchal or autocratic system by whoever manages to accrue the most capital.

 

[RedSword12]

Either way, the same thing would've happened that happened under Gorbachev, just 3-4 decades sooner. Mass unemployment, poverty, socio-economic collapse. A brief window of vaguely functional democracy which would be quickly replaced by an oligarchal or autocratic system by whoever manages to accrue the most capital.

It depends on how it's carried out. And by the time of Gorbachev, the USSR's economy was already weakened by decades of Brezhnev-era stagnation and corruption.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It would be extremely difficult to do this without getting overthrown, and that's an understatement. Especially the part about the planned economy, which many would see as a betrayal of the revolution.

That said, if we accept that Kruschev against the odds somehow manages to pull it off, the Soviet Union is in a much stronger position in the long run. That said, I think we would need a lot more policy details to have a decent idea of what it would look like.

I know it's almost impossible but just what would happen if.
In the sense that basically the Soviet Union's economy doesn't stagnate and remains on the economic level of the Western countries, therefore being able to subside its allies without any problems.

I'm not sure it's particularly convincing to claim that the "ridiculous" planned economy actually did hold the Soviets back during that time period.

For a short time, the USSR was actually more advanced in microelectronics than the US, and let's not forget that they won every single battle of the space race bar the moon landing. Let's also not forget they transformed from a feudal backwater to a major power capable of defeating Europe's largest army in the space of a few short decades - all under the supposedly ridiculous planned economy. Yes, it ultimately failed, but it was doing pretty well in the international comparison throughout the 50s and 60s. The first signs of economic stagnation/collapse didn't really start appearing until the late 70s.

Either way, the same thing would've happened that happened under Gorbachev, just 3-4 decades sooner. Mass unemployment, poverty, socio-economic collapse. A brief window of vaguely functional democracy which would be quickly replaced by an oligarchal or autocratic system by whoever manages to accrue the most capital.

The planned economy is fine as long as you have a strong leader (which certainly isn't Brezhnev) but some aspects of it can be better especially the fact that party officials weren't experts as loyalty was rewarded more than efficiency, and not completely reforming the system but improving so that it is more efficient.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

What if Kruschev had outright purged Lysenko and posthumously rehabilitated Vavilov, in response to the 1955 "Letter of Three Hundred" ?

 

[Crueldwarf]

In the sense that basically the Soviet Union's economy doesn't stagnate and remains on the economic level of the Western countries, therefore being able to subside its allies without any problems.

For a Soviet economy to remain on the economic level of Western countries it needs to be at that level at some point in time in the first place. And it actually never was. USSR was competing with the 'West' from a bottom a really deep pit and talks about how ineffective Soviet planned economy was conveniently forget that most of the time.

The rest is basically the same kind of thinking - this pervasive idea that problems like bureaucracy or corruption have solutions. The thing is - they don't. Nobody solved bureaucracy or corruption, West or East it doesn't matter.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

For a Soviet economy to remain on the economic level of Western countries it needs to be at that level at some point in time in the first place. And it actually never was. USSR was competing with the 'West' from a bottom a really deep pit and talks about how ineffective Soviet planned economy was conveniently forget that most of the time.

The rest is basically the same kind of thinking - this pervasive idea that problems like bureaucracy or corruption have solutions. The thing is - they don't. Nobody solved bureaucracy or corruption, West or East it doesn't matter.

Interpretate the post as: What if the economy in the USSR was better than OTL?

 

[Cudymcar]

What if Kruschev had completely de-Stalinized the USSR?

Term "De-Stalinization" has different meanings. For Khrushchev it meant removing Stalin's name from everything, nothing else. In this sense, Khrushchev had de-Stalinized the USSR competely.

What if Kruschev had completely reformed the USSR, removing all of the things that pulled the Soviets back such as ridiculous planned economy, too much bureaucracy, corruption... Without being couped

Khrushchev's economic and administrative "reforms", that's what was ridiculous.

 

[Crueldwarf]

Interpretate the post as: What if the economy in the USSR was better than OTL?

Better how? Scrapping central planning and introducing free market wouldn't make it better for sure because 'free market' is not a flat modifier from a video game.

Khruschev was actually in position to improve Soviet economic foundations but he failed in the end and was removed. Central planning was never a problem for the Soviets, their main problem was subordination of civilian economy to a defense sector. Which introduced a lot of weird dynamics in how Soviet economy operated.

Also I must note that it is not about 'Soviets spent over 9000 percent of their GDP on the military' because all these estimates that float around are simple bullshit calculated on the basis of not very well-educated guesses. The problem was that majority of Soviet budget spending was controlled the what you can call a 'military-industrial complex' (of very different nature that US had and still have) and while it was still spent predominately on civilian things and for civilian purposes, there was always a background element of optimization of everything for military production and military conflict.

Khruschev attempted if not to combat this nascent (at his time) military-industrial complex but at least attacked one of the pillars of its influence - large conventional military. If Khruschev succeeds at that, the influence of the military and military industry in the Soviet economy will fall naturally which will lead to a more balanced development later. Historically Khruschev fall to a double strike of internal resistance and Cuban Missile Crisis after-effects which doomed his push towards smaller military that relied on nuclear weapons as a main deterrent.

Remove Cuban Missile Crisis from the equation, keep Khruschev in power for several more years for his reforms to solidify and you will improve Soviet economy down the line.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Khrushchev's economic and administrative "reforms", that's what was ridiculous

Here he does actual reforms, improving the Soviet system.

 

[Sasza]

Another tankie, the USSR constantly showed how powerful it was in TASS news or when Khrushchev banged his shoe at the UN meeting.

If you want to be an alternative to rotten capitalism, your greatest achievement cannot be black bread on the White Sea.

Like in a certain joke from mine country.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Better how? Scrapping central planning and introducing free market wouldn't make it better for sure because 'free market' is not a flat modifier from a video game.

Khruschev was actually in position to improve Soviet economic foundations but he failed in the end and was removed. Central planning was never a problem for the Soviets, their main problem was subordination of civilian economy to a defense sector. Which introduced a lot of weird dynamics in how Soviet economy operated.

Also I must note that it is not about 'Soviets spent over 9000 percent of their GDP on the military' because all these estimates that float around are simple bullshit calculated on the basis of not very well-educated guesses. The problem was that majority of Soviet budget spending was controlled the what you can call a 'military-industrial complex' (of very different nature that US had and still have) and while it was still spent predominately on civilian things and for civilian purposes, there was always a background element of optimization of everything for military production and military conflict.

Khruschev attempted if not to combat this nascent (at his time) military-industrial complex but at least attacked one of the pillars of its influence - large conventional military. If Khruschev succeeds at that, the influence of the military and military industry in the Soviet economy will fall naturally which will lead to a more balanced development later. Historically Khruschev fall to a double strike of internal resistance and Cuban Missile Crisis after-effects which doomed his push towards smaller military that relied on nuclear weapons as a main deterrent.

Remove Cuban Missile Crisis from the equation, keep Khruschev in power for several more years for his reforms to solidify and you will improve Soviet economy down the line.

In this case maybe I should've said "What if Kruschev had remained in power"?
What I meant was the USSR's not stagnating and having a decent grow rate (although now I realize that a better way of doing that is removing Brezhnev) and the Soviet Union doesn't need to reform.

 

[Cudymcar]

Here he does actual reforms, improving the Soviet system.

Kosygin was the only one who proposed actual reforms.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Kosygin was the only one who proposed actual reforms.

He implements them

 

[Cudymcar]

He implements them

Not under Khrushchev. Khrushchev was very left economically, more left than Stalin. He nationalized the last form of small business, artels. He would never allow anything even slightly resembling private capital.

 

[ennobee]

Title:

What if Kruschev had completely de-Stalinized the USSR?

Actual text:

What if Kruschev had completely reformed the USSR, removing all of the things that pulled the Soviets back such as ridiculous planned economy, too much bureaucracy, corruption... Without being couped

So are we talking about reforming the USSR into a better democracy? Or a better economy? Or about doing away with the excesses of Stalinism and taking the country back to Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism pure? Because OTL it seems to have been Kruschev's idea that it was the Stalin cult and it's excessive jockeying to be in Srlralib's personal good graces that was holding the USSR's functional Marxism back.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Title:

Actual text:

So are we talking about reforming the USSR into a better democracy? Or a better economy? Or about doing away with the excesses of Stalinism and taking the country back to Marxism-Leninism or even Marxism pure? Because OTL it seems to have been Kruschev's idea that it was the Stalin cult and it's excessive jockeying to be in Srlralib's personal good graces that was holding the USSR's functional Marxism back.

Reforming the USSR into a better economy, I said de-Stalinize because it was Stalin the one who created those 'problems' (they are problems when a weak leader such as Brezhnev takes over).

 

[Initium Sapientiæ]

Another tankie

Who? Anyone taking a differentiated view of the Soviet Union?

The USSR committed heinous crimes against humanity, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to act like everything that ever happened in the 7 decades the USSR existed was bad. The fact of the matter is that in the 50s and 60s the average Soviet citizen wasn't far behind in raw economic terms than the average British or French citizen.

Acting like the USSR was the land of milk and honey is complete nonsense based on the historical facts, yes, but so is acting like nothing the Soviets did ever had any sort of merit in any sphere or by any measure.

A tankie wouldn't say that central planning achieved remarkable improvements in the Russian economy from the 1920s until the 1950s-60s, at which point it began to demonstrate its flaws and ultimately failed - which is the point I was making.

A tankie would say that the paradise of workers and peasants was perfidiously undermined by the evil imperialist bourgeoisie, and that is the sole reason it collapsed. That's quite emphatically not what I'm saying. My own great-grandfather died in a Soviet labour camp; you don't have to convince me that the USSR very obviously wasn't the best thing since sliced bread 🙃