Like a 22.400.000 km-long North Korea, of sorts. Complete with the military being the only semi-functional state organ, near-famine conditions being the norm and the very thought of 'national self-determination' netting someone at least a 3-generation long kin punishment in the GULAG-slash-crystal meth production plant.
Could a more hardline (Stalinist-lite) USSR survive to this day, even after a complete economic implosion?
- Thread starter Logothétes
- Start date
Ultrackius
Banned
I would argue that a hard line USSR wouldn't have had the economic implosion, since they would have never gone into market reforms, instead pushing down harder to keep the bueracrsts in check (plus without Khruschev the Soviet computing projects would have never been cancelled, and the planned economy would get a lot more efficient due to that), and would likely have a larger sphere of influence, as the more hardline Stalinist figures tended to also be the ones who were more aggressive on foreign policy
Last edited:
An aggressively expansionist, hard line USSR in the 1970s and 1980s would likely have resulted in a lot of thermonuclear explosions (well, technically they'd start with implosions...) and no subsequent US or USSR economic activity beyond looting and bartering
Last edited:
They might not have had a market crash but without those reforms, the soviet union wouldn't be able to hold on to what they took half a century earlier. Not to mention there would be a good chance for the various parts of the union to revolt. It would be like a DPRK they are just objectively poor. Some parts might be more advanced but on a whole they would be behind, poorer, and more oppressed. The problem with a planned economy is just that an economy is too large to be planned. What Decisions about what advances come at the opportunity cost of other places. See Stalinist USSR which has Heavy industry out the waaazoo, but it was so god awful at consumer goods and one of the worst logistics systems known to man. More so, What did the heavy industry get them? a more affordable military-industrial complex? That is a sure recipe for disaster.
Either the USSR tries to reform, or it would have collapsed in a violent revolution eventually. oppression and poverty on that level cannot be sustained and the house of cards will fall apart.
Ultrackius
Banned
I would argue that without the Kruschevite market reforms you would see a much stronger USSR. The "too large" issue can easily be solved either with decentralized planning or computerized planning, and the Soviets were making a conputerized planning system before Khruschev took over, and in the early part of his leadership. Without him cancelling the project to focus on heavy industry the Soviet planned economy could easily continue its growth from the pre-war era, and outpace the USA economically. While I do agreee that it would have a difficult time keeping the Warsaw Pact under control, you would see much greater investment in anti-colonial movements and communists in the rest of the world, which (after the pact is inevitably calmed down and Molotov begins his integration plans) would lead to a much stronger USSR on the world stage when combined with the massively improved economy from not doing any market reform.
I'm not necessarily arguing for Kruschevite reforms (though some market reforms are necessary). I'm instead arguing that coming from the Stalinist USSR they really had two options for surviving, Either going the way of China and slowly open up while massively clamping down on corruption (which is unbelievably bad in Russia) or a successful market reform. To do anything else you turn into Cuba at best and the DPRK at worst. But for the USSR to survive it needs a better way to generate wealth, a way to generate human capital, and a way to reduce the barriers to both. Computerized planning will not fix that nor will decentralize the system. Computerizing it might help on the generating wealth front, but the oppression prevents human capital, and the corruption raises the barriers way to high
The question however is that of survival and not of economic success. And as North Korea shows survival is possible against all odds as a hardcore regime.
Ultrackius
Banned
Corruption at the time of Stalin's death was relatively minor, only spiraling out once the market reform and Breznevite stagnation took place. If we switch Khruschev out for Molotov you don't have that issue, since the causes of corruption won't show up. Planned economies are more efficient and generally better then market ones, so if the Soviets stick too it I would argue that it would have a far and away much better economy by sticking too the massively successful 5 year plan model, with the additional bonuses of computerizing early. The only place where you'll see actual anti-Soviet moments around the time of Stalin's death was in the Warsaw Pact nations, not in the Union itself. This is the one area where Molotov might end up having more issues, since he'd likely put them on an even tighter leash, and at one point (I think) even proposed integrating them into the Union itself. However with a more hardline stance you would also see much greater success of communist movements around the globe, in places like France, Latin America, and Colonial Africa, where the Soviets will actually commit to fighting colonialism, and will give much greater funding to communist rebel groups. In addition, without Khruschev there would be no Sino-Soviet split, and Mao's China would remain firmly in the Soviet orbit, with Deng likely not being able to get his hands on the reigns of power. All of this paints a picture of a much stronger Soviet Union on the geo-political stage, and on the economic one.
The multiethnic makeup is would make it hard to maintainnsuchnabrule. Despite the Soviet Communist ideology ethnic tensions and social hieracy exists. Ethnic Russian rule and dominance would be enforced despite the changing demographics. Central Asian Muslims would have had major population growth for example even in the ATL scenario. In a German news maganzine issue of DER DPIEGEL of the early 80es they had a cover if a praying Muslim in front of the Soviet flag. It was in connection with the Afghanistan War. In the main article they predicted the growth of Muslim Soviet population and the challenge for Soviet Communist ethnic Russian rule over the Republics.
Quite fair, Though I do imagine that a hypothetical USSR would have a much more difficult time pulling it off considering the massive borders they would have to contend with. I think Going more hardline might buy a year or two by pillaging their satellite states, but would ultimately doom the union no matter what because of unrest, and lack of growth. Whereas a reform policy might turn the union into a more sustainable state
Ultrackius
Banned
The hardline ML position is what would have preserved the Union and made it stronger, and capitalist reforms would have just made it collapse sooner then OTL
mial42
Gone Fishin'
...Citation needed. There's a reason mixed-market economies dominate the world, and it's that they outperformed planned economies by a huge margin.
Ultrackius
Banned
Look at the massive succeses of the five year plans when compared to the more market oriented USSR of the later years. Planned economies don't generate profit of course, but that's not what their intended to do.
The first five year plan was indeed "successful" at building up heavy industry, but it also killed five million people. The next six plans completely failed to meet their targets.
Last edited:
Ultrackius
Banned
The first two and the fourth were massive success (the third was cancelled early due to WW2) and after that Khruschev ended the program, with only a few, very limited ones occurring, who succeeded in their goals, even if market reforms meant that they had much less ambitious objectives, and couldn't have as much impact as they would have if there were no market reforms