Can the USSR be democratic without collapsing?

kernals12

Banned
I disagree. Better for Russians, maybe (I doubt Russians would really feel much of a difference of keeping the periphery vs losing it, and it might even make the situation worse, as much of the government's funds would have to be diverted to developing the periphery instead of developing the Russian core), but better for the half of the Soviet population that wasn't Russian? Not at all.

Knowing that the only way that a (supposedly) democratic Soviet Union would be able to keep the Baltic states in line would be through undemocratic suppression of the will of the people living there, be it through vote rigging, suppressing protests or Russian colonization, I would not want to live in such a universe. (Of course, that's my personal experience showing, as a TTL version of me would probably write in this forum from jail.)

And, in my opinion, Russia keeping all of the USSR does not prevent the rise of a Putin-style strongman. Losing the Warsaw Pact and reforming to the ideology of your opponent is still a defeat in the Cold War, even if you keep your empire.
In this scenario, communism, not Russia, would lose the cold war. And giant Russia would still be a superpower.
 

kernals12

Banned
I don't think it's impossible. Just unlikely.

Western USA democratic? Which honestly is not really two parties but 1 party covering the capitalist spectrum.
Other parties and types while not banned have been smeared and outcast.

Could the Soviet Union be more democratic. Of course.. On the topic of the Baltic Well look at the USA who didn't want others to break away even so the Baltic were invaded . Looking at the time many still felt that was part of the Russian empire. Self determination is not nor has it ever been equal.

Self determination has always worked on the sponsor model, strongest sponsor decides.

That's unfortunately said, however one could make the case that a more democratic as in more closly included in the western world model could be developed. The west however made good money on the cold war, and the soviets used the situation and size not to mature and grow since fear of the evil west kept many in line inside the Soviet bubble

Reforms, follow the written constitution with separated powers and why not
You really need to do some reading if you think both parties are the same.
 
USSR didn't collapse because it's economic model was a disaster, even if it economy had functioned better it would have collapsed. USSR collapsed because it was a Russian colonial empire and Russians was decreasing as percent of the population. Unless USSR succeed in creating a stronger Soviet identity or avoid the Russian population decreasing as much, the empire will collapse.
 
In this scenario, communism, not Russia, would lose the cold war. And giant Russia would still be a superpower.
Even in the best case scenario, Russia would lose its worldwide influence due to the Warsaw Pact dropping out and COMECON almost certainly getting disestablished. Even in the best case scenario, Russia would still suffer a steep economic recession in the 1980s and 1990s, its problems at that point were too deep and tragic that even the world's most intelligent cabal of economists wouldn't have been able to get it out of the water without some losses. Russia was also already too far behind the West and Japan to be considered a superpower on economic terms (Japan had already surpassed the Soviet Union in 1990, reunified Germany was on its level as well, not even talking about the gap between them and America).

Sounds like a defeat to me.
 
Depends on how Gorbachev’s reforms go. If he persues deeper economic reform while at the same time avoiding political liberalisation and keeping Communist party officials happy, it could happen. Although some measures such as moving from state atheism to secularism would help. Possibly agreeing with Warsaw Pact states to delay their reforms for a while to prevent them from slipping from Soviet grasp early, in exchange for putting down protests with Soviet military strength.
If this reform is successful at ending the Soviet economic stagnation, in the early 1990s Gorbachev could begin some sort of democratisation process. End result varies from the same as OTL except with a smoother transition to a continued USSR in the 21st century that is de jure socialist and de facto semi-market economy.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
USSR didn't collapse because it's economic model was a disaster, even if it economy had functioned better it would have collapsed. USSR collapsed because it was a Russian colonial empire and Russians was decreasing as percent of the population. Unless USSR succeed in creating a stronger Soviet identity or avoid the Russian population decreasing as much, the empire will collapse.
Then how come the Muslim Central Asian SSRs were the Republics which were the MOST enthusiastic about staying in the Union despite the most ethnic difference from Russia?

How come 70%+ of Ukraine voted to continue the USSR in 1991?

Nationalist separatism was only inherently an issue in the Baltic states, it was manageable even without a one party system in the rest of the union. The idea that the USSR was a prison of nations eager to bolt at the first instance is a myth.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Would the Baltics want to leave a democratic Union tough? So a Union stopping the colonization and the cultural assimilation?
The Baltics yes, it's the one of the region where the USSR needed to occupy to force them to stay, the other ones were places like Georgia
 
Last edited:
I see most of t
You haven't been paying attention then to all the vicious debates over numerous issues that have gone on throughout our history.
i see those as bread and circus mainly. governments don't change unless cornered normally, in 1933 what was the difference on civil rights?

in 1840 what was the difference on slavery ..


great some people have some different views, but in reality it was the society of the times that dictated what was.

same for the soviet union, times were changing
 
not in the purest sense but you could have representatives all trying to describe their communism. Though it being the USSR its likely that whoever the leader is would stamp it would quickly anyway.
 
Top