How Long Could A Stalinist USSR Last?

Wolfpaw

Banned
How long could the Soviet Union have kept going under the Stalinist system before some sort of internal collapse/massive reform/World War III? Say Stalin kicks the bucket in '53 as in OTL, how long could a Stalinist successor (Molotov, Kaganovich, Voroshilov, etc.) keep up the system--Politically, militarily, and economically? Obviously the Joseph Vissarionovich's personality cult will take a hit, but we've seen how long they've been able to keep the Mao cult alive, so...

 
That depends on how Stalinist it has to be (and what you consider to be Stalinism really). Even Stalin couldn't keep Stalinism going constantly, there were lulls where he was clearly in the background, but the system didn't really seem dominated by terror and excessive centralisation. The lates fourties and very early 1950s are an example of one of these quiet periods, which appeared to be ending with the leadership changes being made in 1952 and the start of the Doctors Plot nonsense.

It's quite likely that Stalin will be criticised in some way no matter who replaces him. After all his successors were victims of the system in their own way. It would just be a question of 'spin'. A more Stalinist candidate would probably take the line later used by Brezhnev, basically that mistakes were made by that there were also successes. There probably won't be an associated removals from the leadership as a result of this approach... if only because this time the anti-party group will be the party.

Economically Stalinism probably isn't sustainable. A lot of the precusors for that success have tried by the mid 1950s, 1960 by the latest. There was no more indigent labour force to draw from, little opportunity to extract surplus from other sectors and the general population was better educated. Any further developments in the economy would have depended on an increasingly skilled work force instead of stakhanovites. Sectors that had been neglected by Stalin would have to be built up by his successors, like the chemical industry. The lack of consumer goods will still have to be addressed as some point, because aside from popular discontent their shortage creates a problem of maintaining work incentives.

Thinking really long term someone like Shelepin might have been a viable post-post Stalin successor. He took a bit of a Stalinist line in the late 1960s against Brezhnev, had he not been defeated then he might have kept it up.
 
Well, generally what Dave says. Stalinism can have many faces. Some would be rather hideous and probably short-lived, others quite bearable. Anyway nothing could continue unchanged for long. While some more hardline then OTL politics is possible, I don't see plausible continuation of perodic bloody purges, terror induced labour victories etc. Not for very long anyway. On the other hand new cult leader could take over after Stalin, keep more strict order then OTL, but he still must address economical problems at the very least. Cult of Stalin may continue but in less fenzied way. While any immediate successor probably would criticise Stalin, it could be done quietely in the inner circle. The reasons while Khruschev and Co had to condemn him is not only because they were victims, but also because their generation actively participated in his crimes. They needed to blame someone, but not themselves. But some younger successor may not need to do this, but contrary needed some legitimisation from Stalin figure.
So some moderate stalinist regime may continue at least as OTL USSR and maybe longer if somehow managed to deal with economical problems. At least they probably would be more harsh toward dissidents and probably could keep less corruption on lower levels (it's more problemtic on higher positions). But if economis fails, the end of such USSR would be much more bloody then OTL.
 
As has been said before is just how stalinist do you want it? All things are relative, I mean Kruschev was quite the stalinist when compared with harry truman, so the issue becomes just how much of an adherent to Stalin's particular ideology is his successor? Obviously, no one is going to make it a seamless transition where you wouldn't notice the difference between stalin and his successor, changes were guaranteed, but someone could always try their best to run the SU as close to the wishes of the dear departed Stalin as possible(I'm guessing either molotov, or maybe beria?), right down to the planned invasion of eastern europe. Or they could maintain the domestic policies only marginally the same as stalin did with perhaps slightly more rapproachment with the west, honestly anybody who looks at the respective number of nukes and intercontinental bombers on either side of the iron curtain in the early 50's has got to realize that a war will be disastrous.

Of interest is the cause of stalin's death, if he is assassinated in TTL, then whoever takes the reigns afterward may be even more paranoid than stalin was, seeing the last guy to hold your job get bumped off can do that. Although remote, such a situation may result in a renewal of the purges, however I'm guessing only one or two of the key players would be that insane, maybe Beria would(although I think he may have just been ridiculously evil, not crazy).
 
Let's say that stalinist means "no XX PCUS congress".
Thus Stalin legend is not tarnished, and Stalin figure remains similar to OTL Mao.
Such as in the OTL Mao, the official position in 50 years will be "ok he made some mistakes, but his action is, on the whole, to be judged in a positive way".
Regarding the effective economic policy, I think the system could survive -barely- if adopting a "human face" approach after '68 (importing prague Spring into CCCP instead of crushing it).
Otherwise the only path I see would be OTL chinese: total adoption of western economic system, and struggle to keep its own political system
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
The North Koreans are still stumbling along being more Stalinist than Stalin ever was.
 
The North Koreans are still stumbling along being more Stalinist than Stalin ever was.

Only just,they can barely substain themselves. The problem with a Stalinist regime is that it constantly needs an enemy to focus the peoples resentment on.The Soviet Union couldn't have stayed Stalinist without a war,outside or internal enemy to focus the peoples resentment on.
 
Top