How can the Soviet Union achieve the best possible industrialization between 1920-1939?

What is the absolute best-case scenario for early Soviet industrialization, ignoring internal politics and leadership? What policies or treaties would advance the USSR the absolute most, providing the largest possible industry and prosperity? Ideally, it would have the lowest death toll from famine as well.
 

trurle

Banned
Actually what remains besides internal politics and leadership?
Scissors Crisis early mitigation would be an easy solution, but it may fall to "internal politics" category.
 
In such a centralized system as the Soviet union, driven by the agendas and wishes of specific individuals, internal politics and leadership is not a variable which one can simply ignore.
 
What is the absolute best-case scenario for early Soviet industrialization,
Well I think Russia did rather well from 1906-1913 in terms of growth so best case is probably the Soviets go for post cold war Chinese styles 'communism' and invite western Europe and US industry to get involved even if it did default on some of its pre war debt, I think this is forgiven quickly and it would still be welcomed back into the international world....
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well I think Russia did rather well from 1906-1913 in terms of growth so best case is probably the Soviets go for post cold war Chinese styles 'communism' and invite western Europe and US industry to get involved even if it did default on some of its pre war debt, I think this is forgiven quickly and it would still be welcomed back into the international world....
What about the fear of Bolshevism, though?
 
Well I think Russia did rather well from 1906-1913 in terms of growth so best case is probably the Soviets go for post cold war Chinese styles 'communism' and invite western Europe and US industry to get involved even if it did default on some of its pre war debt, I think this is forgiven quickly and it would still be welcomed back into the international world....

Yeah, no. "Consumer communism" would not be enough to get the west to tolerate the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were scary because they were revolutionaries who advocated overthrowing the entire system the West was built on. Whatever they wanted to replace it with, they'd still be a threat.

What is the absolute best-case scenario for early Soviet industrialization, ignoring internal politics and leadership? What policies or treaties would advance the USSR the absolute most, providing the largest possible industry and prosperity? Ideally, it would have the lowest death toll from famine as well.

Best case scenario in what sense? The best case scenario for getting the most industry by 1941 is different from the best case scenario for getting the most industry by 1955.

If you want the best long-term outcome, then Bukharin's ideas were the closest (so continuing to allow small scale free enterprise and allowing the peasants more freedom to choose what they farmed, how to farm it and the ability to sell their produce coupled with state-led development of heavy industry). There's pretty much no chance that those ideas would have been chosen.

The next best long-term outcome would be the "Trotskyite" path - that is, the Soviet Union being more open to trade in goods and ideas (Stalin forbade Soviet scientists to travel abroad to conferences, which enormously damaged scientific inquiry in the Soviet Union) while collectivizing agriculture and pushing aggressively to build more heavy industry, only starting a couple years earlier than OTL. A surviving Lenin or Zinoviev becoming leader of the party could lead to such an outcome. Starting collectivization early helps enormously, since the peak of the collectivization campaign doesn't coincide with the trough of the Great Depression grain-price collapse AND with a natural drought (starting collectivization late also saves millions of lives - the Soviets OTL really had poor timing on this one).

fasquardon
 
What about the fear of Bolshevism, though?

Yeah, no. "Consumer communism" would not be enough to get the west to tolerate the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were scary because they were revolutionaries who advocated overthrowing the entire system the West was built on. Whatever they wanted to replace it with, they'd still be a threat.
I agree it not likely but since the OP said "ignoring internal politics and leadership?" then you can agree to give up the world revolution on some spurious grounds that revolutions in the democracies can be done strictly by electoral means, without violent external revolution you can build 'Socialism in One Country' but on a much more peaceful and open basis if you can forget about Stalin being Stalin...

You basically dont bother with collectivisation but just have a low level of land reforms and carry on with pre war industrialization..... Russia and the world would be such a nicer and richer place...
 
You basically dont bother with collectivisation but just have a low level of land reforms and carry on with pre war industrialization..... Russia and the world would be such a nicer and richer place...

It depends on what the land reforms are - after all, part of the reason Tsarist Russia was in the mess it was had to do with Alexander II enacting land reforms that were arguably worse than what had come before.

And pre-war industrialization wouldn't get Russia far at all. If you just extend the trend-line of Russian economic growth in the 1906-1913 period forward into 2016, yeah, Russia would be pretty amazingly rich. But projecting short term trends into the future never ends well. If Russia had continued market development then it would have experienced stagnation, collapse and boom at different time. The likelihood is that if Russia (or the Soviet Union) had continued a pure market development path, then between 1919 and 1941, they would have been pretty close to stagnant. Why? Because that's what happened to everyone in that period that depended on market-driven growth.

(Of course, during the interwar period a good many capitalist economies engaged in programs of planned economic growth that were plenty effective, so it's not like the Soviet government has to choose between only one extreme or the other, but following the pre-war path was only going to get the Russians/Soviets into trouble.)

fasquardon
 
Top