A Communist Restoration in Russia During the 1990s

Arctofire

Banned
Multiple factors led up to the USSR's demise. The excessive emphasis on centralised planning, unproductive agriculture, neglect of consumer goods at the expense of heavy industry, and an authoritarian state machine, led the regime by the late 1980s to be extremely unpopular. When Gorbachev attempted to reform the Soviet Union, he in fact made the problems worse. Perestroika worsened the economy instead of helping it, leading to the emergence of mass shortages for basic food staples, a decline in the quality of services, and a sharp rise in the national debt. Glasnost allowed for people to openly dissent against the regime, and they did, electing reformist president Boris Yeltsin as the President of the RFSSR in 1991.

Initially, it looked like the USSR might hang on. A referendum held in March of 1991 showed overwhelming support for the continuation of the Union. However, the August coup attempt changed that, when hardline Communists tried to overthrow Gorbachev and reverse the political and economic reforms that he had put through. This lead to the crumbling of the union, with Ukraine declaring independence later in the year, and Boris Yeltsin signing an agreement with the remaining republics, Belarus and Kazakhstan, to dissolve the union.

It was clear that the mass of Russians at this point were tired of the Soviet system, and wanted to transition to a more western oriented market economy. However, when this was actually put into practice their views changed dramatically, and by the late 1990s the vast majority of Russian's were crying for the Soviet system back, reeling in remorse for their ingratitude previously, prepared to sacrifice their freedom to have bread on the table once again.

Inflation skyrocketed to over 1000% when all exchange and price controls were suddenly lifted. Mass privatisation resulted in millions of job losses. State owned assets were sold off at a fraction of their worth to ex-bureaucrats turned oligarchs who often moved their wealth abroad and robbed the coffers of the enterprises they had been given. Organised crime spiralled out of control as people resorted to whatever means necessary to survive. Life expectancy declined, as the quality of healthcare worsened and many fell into a deep depression and turned to alcohol.

But I think what many people miss, is how close Russia was at various points to a communist restoration during this time. The 1993 constitutional crisis posed a major challenge to Yeltsin's reform agenda. Parliament could have won, if they had focused less on forces within the establishment coming to their aid and focused more on building a rank and file movement. The generals in the army in the end thought that Yeltsin was their best bet.

This is a pattern you see throughout the 90s. Down below there was mass resentment and anger, but the forces capable of delivering change wanted to try and achieve power through constitutional means, even in a country as corrupt and as rigged as the Russian Federation at that time. Of course, it is natural for people to chose the path of least resistance at first. That was why the Communist Party of the Russian Federation found such appeal when it was first founded in 1993, because its premise was that it was a mass front for opposition to Yeltsin, and based on the principle of peaceful electoral means of restoring communist power. However, Viktor Anpilov of the Communist Workers Party, opposed this new party, believing it to be reformist and incapable of delivering change. The CWP had been a mass force early in the decade, attempting to build a mass grassroots army in support of parliament. However, most of its members then defected to the CPRF when it was founded, despite Anpilov himself opposing it.

But at this time, there was ample opportunity for an armed struggle. The Chechen rebels were doing it, even some anarchist and National Bolshevik groups formed their own militias. But for whatever reason, the CWP did not after 1993, despite still having a large base of members.

What if, in an alternate timeline, Viktor Anpilov continues on the struggle? Similar to the leftist insurrectionist groups during the cold war in places like Latin America, the CWP enters itself into the civic life of the working class, and sets up mutual aid initiatives like food banks and free medical checkups? Whilst committing armed terrorism against oligarchs and seeking to overthrow the government.

They claim to be the successor of the Soviet Union, and they have many claims to legitimacy with this.

1. In 1991 the electorate of the Soviet Union had overwhelmingly backed its continuation, and despite Ukraine declaring independence later that year, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus had no other referendum other than the one in March. They had no final say in the breakup, and so therefore, the USSR still is the legitimate government of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.

2. That whilst there was support back then for a transition to capitalism, the people of Russia should have a chance to change their minds after realising the consequences. At this stage, Yeltsin's approval rating was in single digits.

3. That turnout was too low during the referendums regarding approval of Yeltsin in 1993 to be considered legitimate.

The spark will probably be during the election of 1996. Gennady Zyganov of the CPRF had a strong lead, and was widely believed to be the next president. However, because of state control of the media, a huge public financing campaign, and raw vote rigging, Yeltsin remained in power.

If there had been a force outside the CPRF, who could have called out the authoritarian behaviour of the Yeltsin government, and claiming that the Russian people must fight for democracy, I believe it would have found overwhelming support. In OTL the will of the people was scuffled by the reformist parties and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, who constantly tried to dampen the struggle and opposed insurrection in favor of misplaced faith in constitutionalism.

By this time in the ATL, the CWU has control over nearly all of the southern Russia 'red belt'. They seek an alliance with the Chechen rebels, and call for an end to the war. By the time of the economic crisis of 1998, the CWU has built enough of an influence around the rank and file industrial working class, to successfully call an indefinite general strike, taking the control over labor from the RFITU and calling for an insurrection. By 1999, all of Russia is under communist control.

On the international scale, this leads to an immediate resumption of cold war hostilities. The new regime is hardline, and desperate to get revenge on the United States. Oligarchs flee the country or risk being lynched by angry mobs. All privatised land is re-nationalised without compensation, and the government launches a 5 year plan to quickly repair the military industrial complex of the Russian state. However, some reforms are retained. Agriculture remains in private hands, and more consumer goods are produced, but other than that the events of the last 10 years are like they never happened.

Viktor Anpilov becomes the new President of Russia, now called the Russian Social Union. An agreement with Belarus and Khazakstan is launched to create a new USSR, this time more decentralised than previously. Crimea is annexed in the early 00s, leading to extremely hostile relations with Ukraine. The climate between Russia and the US in OTL is moved almost 20 year forward, as the new USSR starts placing military bases on Venezuela and Iraq, saying that if Bush tries to topple Saddam they will be declaring war on them. Venezuela also goes the full way with its revolution, turning to a completely planned economy and getting aid from the Soviets.

Communism returns as a mass ideology. The new regime allies itself with numerous third world regimes, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, and says that the USSR will take a more interventionist role like it did its early years, arming numerous rebel groups and seeking to get retribution on the United States for a decade of humiliation and defeat. The 2008 crash sees a surge in support for communism worldwide, and the new USSR is placed in a similar position as it was after the crash of 1929. Mass support for anti-capitalist ideas is found in the countries of the west, and the USSR seems like an attractive alternative.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Viktor Anpilov becomes the new President of Russia, now called the Russian Social Union. An agreement with Belarus and Khazakstan is launched to create a new USSR, this time more decentralised than previously. Crimea is annexed in the early 00s, leading to extremely hostile relations with Ukraine. The climate between Russia and the US in OTL is moved almost 20 year forward, as the new USSR starts placing military bases on Venezuela and Iraq, saying that if Bush tries to topple Saddam they will be declaring war on them. Venezuela also goes the full way with its revolution, turning to a completely planned economy and getting aid from the Soviets.
the late 90s is too late for this and you basically run into the same problem that Putin ran into otl with the Eurasian Union: which is you really have limited control over the ruling political actors in those countries even if you get them to sign on to some nominal union in exchange for what amounted to bribe money.

The time to "re-found" a non-Communist Soviet Union was the period immediately after Dec 1991 when the CIS looked to be a successor to the Soviet Union and maybe you could have had a confederation of the major Republics like Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan but by the late 90s it's too late for that.

Communism returns as a mass ideology. The new regime allies itself with numerous third world regimes, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, and says that the USSR will take a more interventionist role like it did its early years, arming numerous rebel groups and seeking to get retribution on the United States for a decade of humiliation and defeat. The 2008 crash sees a surge in support for communism worldwide, and the new USSR is placed in a similar position as it was after the crash of 1929. Mass support for anti-capitalist ideas is found in the countries of the west, and the USSR seems like an attractive alternative.
Why?

In atl you basically have a USSR trying to run a 1980s style Communist economy only now you are trying to do it -after- the worst part of otl 1990s destroyed the economy

AND on top of that you are inflicting another extremely damaging round of economic transition to re-establish a command economy

AND you are throwing money into establishing military parity with the US, at a time when the economic disparity between the US and Russia was worse than 1980s US and USSR

AND sending aid all over the place like during the Cold War

AND you are doing all of this at a time when Russia was a lot more dependent on global trade than the 1980s

the ATL Russia you are talking about is going to be an extremely poor place which combines the worst of the Soviet system with the worst damages of the 1990s. If there's one model that's going to be appealing after 2008 atl, it's not the USSR, it's China as per otl.
 
Last edited:
So the Russians are going to declare war on the USA with their late 1990's military? Good luck to them.
 

Arctofire

Banned
What is it with these alternative history forums? Whenever I write a highly detailed and historically accurate scenario they always pick it completely apart, sometimes I feel like just to insult me.
 

Arctofire

Banned
the late 90s is too late for this and you basically run into the same problem that Putin ran into otl with the Eurasian Union: which is you really have limited control over the ruling political actors in those countries even if you get them to sign on to some nominal union in exchange for what amounted to bribe money.

The time to "re-found" a non-Communist Soviet Union was the period immediately after Dec 1991 when the CIS looked to be a successor to the Soviet Union and maybe you could have had a confederation of the major Republics like Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan but by the late 90s it's too late for that.

Why?

In atl you basically have a USSR trying to run a 1980s style Communist economy only now you are trying to do it -after- the worst part of otl 1990s destroyed the economy

AND on top of that you are inflicting another extremely damaging round of economic transition to re-establish a command economy

AND you are throwing money into establishing military parity with the US, at a time when the economic disparity between the US and Russia was worse than 1980s US and USSR

AND sending aid all over the place like during the Cold War

AND you are doing all of this at a time when Russia was a lot more dependent on global trade than the 1980s

the ATL Russia you are talking about is going to be an extremely poor place which combines the worst of the Soviet system with the worst damages of the 1990s. If there's one model that's going to be appealing after 2008 atl, it's not the USSR, it's China as per otl.

The command economy is far superior to the market one. When it transitioned in 1917 it brought the country full literacy and superpower status in less than 20 years, an achievement which has so far been unparalleled. It has nearly always meant that the people have an improvement in their living standards. When a command economy has transitioned to a market one, it has always had the opposite effect, destitution, poverty, unemployment, declining living standards.

Russia can be a largely self sufficient economy, with lots of arable land, coal, steel, etcetra. It is just that it essentially became a colony of the USA in the 90s. Such a humiliation, a national disgrace, would rightly drive the Russians to anger as it did in our timeline.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The command economy is far superior to the market one. When it transitioned in 1917 it brought the country full literacy and superpower status in less than 20 years, an achievement which has so far been unparalleled. It has nearly always meant that the people have an improvement in their living standards.
Command economies are good at industrializing a country from a agrarian economy into an industrialized one, but once it hits the point when urbanization/industrial percentage of the economy, it has trouble increasing efficiency and thus growth stagnates. The lack of price signals and market discipline of unprofitable firms hinders an economy's growth potential. That is the story proven by the Cold War, rapid economic growth for the USSR in the early years, followed by stagnation once it runs out of peasants to put into factories. Command economies are not good at managing an advanced industrial society, nor at managing a transition from an industrial to a post-industrial society which is the hallmark of growth in the 90s-2000s.

Russia can be a largely self sufficient economy, with lots of arable land, coal, steel, etcetra. It is just that it essentially became a colony of the USA in the 90s. Such a humiliation, a national disgrace, would rightly drive the Russians to anger as it did in our timeline.
There's a difference between self-sufficiency and a wealthy country, even the USSR was largely dependent on selling oil abroad for hard currency.

When a command economy has transitioned to a market one, it has always had the opposite effect, destitution, poverty, unemployment, declining living standards.
True for Russia, not true for China, Vietnam, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and numerous other countries.

Shanghai 1990 vs 2012 after two decades of market reforms:

6xQXRwe.jpg


OTOH: see North Korea in the 90s as an example of what an isolated command economy looks like
 

Arctofire

Banned
Command economies are good at industrializing a country from a agrarian economy into an industrialized one, but once it hits the point when urbanization/industrial percentage of the economy, it has trouble increasing efficiency and thus growth stagnates. The lack of price signals and market discipline of unprofitable firms hinders an economy's growth potential. That is the story proven by the Cold War, rapid economic growth for the USSR in the early years, followed by stagnation once it runs out of peasants to put into factories.

There's a difference between self-sufficiency and a wealthy country, even the USSR was largely dependent on selling oil abroad for hard currency.

True for Russia, not true for China, Vietnam, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and numerous other countries.

Shanghai 1990 vs 2012 after two decades of market reforms:

6xQXRwe.jpg


OTOH: see North Korea in the 90s as an example of what an isolated command economy looks like

And what's saying it couldn't sell oil abroad in the 00s?

It is ridiculous to think that a country as large as Russia, with some of the most fertile land on the planet and ample coal, oil, gas, and steel reserves, would be anything comparable to North Korea, which lacks all of those things.

I mentioned that there are some reforms they implement, like agriculture remaining in private hands and focusing more on consumer goods.

And yes, I will admit China is much better off now than it was before the market reforms. It must not be forgotten however, that many Chinese people still live in dire poverty, and also China has followed a state led model which has led to vastly better results than say, India, where social progress moves at a very sluggish place and despite the wealth of a tiny few, is still dirt poor.
 

RousseauX

Donor
And what's saying it couldn't sell oil abroad in the 00s?

I mentioned that there are some reforms they implement, like agriculture remaining in private hands and focusing more on consumer goods.
Agriculture in a small % of the economy in the USSR (it was only 1-2%)

Focusing on consumer goods....while you are rebuilding the military-industrial complex for a new cold war? That's contradiction: you can't be rebuilding the army and focusing on consumer good at once, you have to choose a focus.

How is this different than Khrushchev or Kosygin's attempted reforms? The problem wasn't which area of industry is being focused on, the problem was the command economy itself.

And yes, I will admit China is much better off now than it was before the market reforms. It must not be forgotten however, that many Chinese people still live in dire poverty, and also China has followed a state led model which has led to vastly better results than say, India, where social progressive moves at a very sluggish place and despite the wealth of a tiny few, is still dirt poor.
China under Mao had literal 10s of millions starving to death

China's growth after market reforms have lifted more people out of poverty than any other country did in history:

320OSvt.png


It is ridiculous to think that a country as large as Russia, with some of the most fertile land on the planet and ample coal, oil, gas, and steel reserves, would be anything comparable to North Korea, which lacks all of those things.
It's not gonna be North Korea, but it's gonna be pretty poor compare to western countries, at some point China is gonna catch up as well. It's a viable country, just not a very appealing model.
 
Last edited:
Cool idea, but it wouldn't work. Other can handle the arguments.

Perhaps suitable for a timeline more different from the start, where the USSR went from liberal communism to capitalism, then back to liberal communism.
 
Inflation skyrocketed to over 1000% when all exchange and price controls were suddenly lifted. Mass privatisation resulted in millions of job losses. State owned assets were sold off at a fraction of their worth to ex-bureaucrats turned oligarchs who often moved their wealth abroad and robbed the coffers of the enterprises they had been given. Organised crime spiralled out of control as people resorted to whatever means necessary to survive. Life expectancy declined, as the quality of healthcare worsened and many fell into a deep depression and turned to alcohol.

I think it's incorrect to say that Russia's problems are because of privatization and liberalization of their economy. It's not like these oligarchs fell from the sky, they were the product of a deeply corrupt Soviet system which didn't disappear overnight post 1991. The damage done to the Russian body politic by 80 years of communism isn't something that can be expected to go away just because the USSR dissolved and I think that legacy is why Russia is the way it is today.

Your post is founded on the fallacy that communism is a good idea that would work if only we could get the right kind of people in charge. But the USSR is a gigantic case study in why that's wrong, there are simply far too many perverse incentives built into the system for it to work the way you envision it working.
 
Top