How would you envision a 21st century USSR?

[Sam R.]

How do you keep a lid on wage labour without tailending the demands of the proletariat before they castrate themselves to save as many civilians east of the Oder in 1941, and after 1941 by tailending the general wage demands of the working class?

Any time you break with that—specifically "tail-ending" and "repressing workers through satisfactions"—you get scissors crises, revolts, or productivity crises.

The only way out is for the revolution to begin, and for the tiger to ride the party. That's a pretty ugly image given Mikoyan's glowing report on 1956, but, if furry imagery is necessary to get through to you the dilemma of a capitalist state founded to liberate the proletariat or at least keep them in canned ham, then imagine the Tiger Riding Mikoyan.

…

No? Then you're going to have to buy off the working class with inefficiency, because you sure as shit can't manage fiats on time.

 

[fasquardon]

Assuming the Soviet Union remained an entity to the present day what kind of nation would it be? Still a superpower? Would China sill have risen like it did over the last 30 years?

It really depends on exactly how the Soviets have survived. Almost certainly even a "stagnant" Soviet system would still host a dynamic society inside it and be surrounded by a dynamic world, so even a zombie Soviet Union would not be the same country in 2020 as it was in 1985.

Potentially, things could be pretty OK. No collapse means no collapse of the Soviets health and education, and that's really good for the region. The region's demographics would be massively improved. The long oil price low in the 90s might mean that the Soviets finally transition from a coal-powered economy to an oil and gas powered economy (which would bring enormous efficiency gains). Relations with China are likely to continue to improve and in the 21st Century this would mean that the Soviets have a friendly peer economy to trade with for the first time in its history. Trade and technology trades with China could boost economic efficiency as well.

On the environmental side, a continuing Soviet Union would mean that environmental disasters could be better controlled (I expect the Soviets could avoid the decay of cotton farming in Central Asia that resulted in actual slave plantations accelerating the already bad situation, for example). On the other hand, the Soviet "war against nature" will continue and there will be no fall in CO2 output from Soviet industry ending. So on the local level, things are better, but for the world things are much worse. The Soviets likely do some degree of water diversion from the north - at least diverting water from Russia's Arctic wetlands to feed the Ukrainian farms.

Possibly the Communists also co-opt their nascent environmental movement, cloaking their difficulty in competing with the West as virtue and making the Capitalist world's "war against nature" even worse as in the West environmentalism becomes linked to Communism.

Human rights abuses continue. Opponents to the regime are likely to continue being treated as mad. Religious freedom continues to be restricted. Some nasty racial tension could develop between Central Asians and the Slavic populations of the Soviet Union as the union becomes increasingly Muslim and Altaic as the demographic gap between the richer republics and the Central Asian republics starts to become noticeable to the ordinary man on the street.

Immigration, especially from Vietnam, likely continues. At some point the Soviets will probably need to admit that these guest workers are permanent additions to the Soviet population, not short-term loans.

The Cold War continues, human civilization continues to be very aware of the sword of damocles above it. I am dubious about how much further arms control talks could go in actually reducing risk while the Soviets are still ideological opponents for the US. There might be some success in preventing an expensive arms race in orbit. The Soviets may face some discomfort as China rises - becoming more of a competitor for title of top dog in the Communist world. Alternatively, a continuing Cold War may cause Sino-American relations to crack earlier, leading to a renewal of the strategic partnership between the Soviets and the Chinese. Alternatively, a continuing Cold War might mean the US works harder to keep China on their side, meaning an even faster rise of China.

Things could get interesting in the 3rd World Soviet allies - 40 years of burgeoning global trade due to China rising (to whatever degree it does rise) and continued Soviet subsidies and security guarantees could lead to the emergence of Soviet-aligned middle income states that are actually worthwhile trade partners. I tend to think that while a continued Cold War would not lead to such a precipitous fall in violence during the 90s, decolonization being mostly complete at this point likely means the 3rd World is nonetheless more calm than it had been in earlier eras of the Cold War.

The Soviet Union would, in military terms at least, still be a superpower.

That's the "plausible optimism" scenario as I see it. Things could be quite a bit worse. Humanity could also be extinct. There's a range of options.

fasquardon

 

[RY1985]

Assuming the Soviet Union remained an entity to the present day what kind of nation would it be? Still a superpower? Would China sill have risen like it did over the last 30 years?

I do wonder what daily life and living standards would be like.

Would this version of the USSR be a closed economy or have some opening up like China?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

How will computers affect Soviet planning if they stick to a command economy?

 

[Cudymcar]

There's an art project called USSR-2061, founded in 2011. They hold contests among general public for visual or literary representations how USSR would look like about this time.

Конкурсы

 

[Alexniko]

It really depends on exactly how the Soviets have survived. Almost certainly even a "stagnant" Soviet system would still host a dynamic society inside it and be surrounded by a dynamic world, so even a zombie Soviet Union would not be the same country in 2020 as it was in 1985.

Potentially, things could be pretty OK. No collapse means no collapse of the Soviets health and education, and that's really good for the region. The region's demographics would be massively improved. The long oil price low in the 90s might mean that the Soviets finally transition from a coal-powered economy to an oil and gas powered economy (which would bring enormous efficiency gains). Relations with China are likely to continue to improve and in the 21st Century this would mean that the Soviets have a friendly peer economy to trade with for the first time in its history. Trade and technology trades with China could boost economic efficiency as well.

On the environmental side, a continuing Soviet Union would mean that environmental disasters could be better controlled (I expect the Soviets could avoid the decay of cotton farming in Central Asia that resulted in actual slave plantations accelerating the already bad situation, for example). On the other hand, the Soviet "war against nature" will continue and there will be no fall in CO2 output from Soviet industry ending. So on the local level, things are better, but for the world things are much worse. The Soviets likely do some degree of water diversion from the north - at least diverting water from Russia's Arctic wetlands to feed the Ukrainian farms.

Possibly the Communists also co-opt their nascent environmental movement, cloaking their difficulty in competing with the West as virtue and making the Capitalist world's "war against nature" even worse as in the West environmentalism becomes linked to Communism.

Human rights abuses continue. Opponents to the regime are likely to continue being treated as mad. Religious freedom continues to be restricted. Some nasty racial tension could develop between Central Asians and the Slavic populations of the Soviet Union as the union becomes increasingly Muslim and Altaic as the demographic gap between the richer republics and the Central Asian republics starts to become noticeable to the ordinary man on the street.

Immigration, especially from Vietnam, likely continues. At some point the Soviets will probably need to admit that these guest workers are permanent additions to the Soviet population, not short-term loans.

The Cold War continues, human civilization continues to be very aware of the sword of damocles above it. I am dubious about how much further arms control talks could go in actually reducing risk while the Soviets are still ideological opponents for the US. There might be some success in preventing an expensive arms race in orbit. The Soviets may face some discomfort as China rises - becoming more of a competitor for title of top dog in the Communist world. Alternatively, a continuing Cold War may cause Sino-American relations to crack earlier, leading to a renewal of the strategic partnership between the Soviets and the Chinese. Alternatively, a continuing Cold War might mean the US works harder to keep China on their side, meaning an even faster rise of China.

Things could get interesting in the 3rd World Soviet allies - 40 years of burgeoning global trade due to China rising (to whatever degree it does rise) and continued Soviet subsidies and security guarantees could lead to the emergence of Soviet-aligned middle income states that are actually worthwhile trade partners. I tend to think that while a continued Cold War would not lead to such a precipitous fall in violence during the 90s, decolonization being mostly complete at this point likely means the 3rd World is nonetheless more calm than it had been in earlier eras of the Cold War.

The Soviet Union would, in military terms at least, still be a superpower.

That's the "plausible optimism" scenario as I see it. Things could be quite a bit worse. Humanity could also be extinct. There's a range of options.

fasquardon

Great post. I agree with most of your points, however I'd like to make a few remarks.

On the question of environmentalism, I think the party would eventually implement an OTL Cuba-esque "Green Revolution". The Cuban example has proven that a planned economy can perform extremely well in terms of environmental protection, provided that there is sufficient pollitical will. And at some point environmental issues would innevitably endanger the health of the general public aswell as economic performance, leaving the party no choice but to act.

Another point that is seldomly considered are the huge implications a surviving Soviet Union would have on the economic developement of the individual SSRs. The transition from socialism to capitalism was absolutely brutal.

Russia took untill 2003 to recover to 1990 GDP per Capita levels. Ukraine took untill 2005, Belarus took untill 2004, Armenia took untill 2001, Georgia took untill 2005, Azerbaijan took untill 2005, Kazakhstan took untill 2002, Turkmenistan took untill 2002, Uzbekhistan took untill 2006 *, Tajikistan took untill 2007, and Kyrgiztan took untill 2007. Sadly I couldn't find data on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (their world bank records only date back to the mid 1990s). The same is true for Moldova, however the accesible data implies a truly massive decline in terms of GDP/PC. Moldova didn't recover to it's (post-collapse) 1997 GDP/PC levels untill 2004.

All numbers are taken from the World Bank. They are freely accesible on the internet.

Compared to OTL, quality of life would allmost certainly be a lot better in all but every SSR, even if we assume a "stagnant" Soviet system.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Great post. I agree with most of your points, however I'd like to make a few remarks.

On the question of environmentalism, I think the party would eventually implement an OTL Cuba-esque "Green Revolution". The Cuban example has proven that a planned economy can perform extremely well in terms of environmental protection, provided that there is sufficient pollitical will. And at some point environmental issues would innevitably endanger the health of the general public aswell as economic performance, leaving the party no choice but to act.

Another point that is seldomly considered are the huge implications a surviving Soviet Union would have on the economic developement of the individual SSRs. The transition from socialism to capitalism was absolutely brutal.

Russia took untill 2003 to recover to 1990 GDP per Capita levels. Ukraine took untill 2005, Belarus took untill 2004, Armenia took untill 2001, Georgia took untill 2005, Azerbaijan took untill 2005, Kazakhstan took untill 2002, Turkmenistan took untill 2002, Uzbekhistan took untill 2006 *, Tajikistan took untill 2007, and Kyrgiztan took untill 2007. Sadly I couldn't find data on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (their world bank records only date back to the mid 1990s). The same is true for Moldova, however the accesible data implies a truly massive decline in terms of GDP/PC. Moldova didn't recover to it's (post-collapse) 1997 GDP/PC levels untill 2004.

All numbers are taken from the World Bank. They are freely accesible on the internet.

Compared to OTL, quality of life would allmost certainly be a lot better in all but every SSR, even if we assume a "stagnant" Soviet system.

Estonia is doing very well right now (at least compared to other former SSRs) with a gdp per capita of over double than what Russia currently has.

Now the question is was it also better when it was part of the Soviet Union

 

[Alexniko]

Estonia is doing very well right now (at least compared to other former SSRs) with a gdp per capita of over double than what Russia currently has.

Now the question is was it also better when it was part of the Soviet Union

AFAIK the Baltics were by far the richest SSRs during basically all of the USSR's history. I'll try to find some hard data..

 

[M79]

Computers will be used to improve industrial efficiency and spy on the populace in ways that would make Orwell's 1984 look like an Ayn Rand short story.

 

[Twin City Lines]

AFAIK the Baltics were by far the richest SSRs during basically all of the USSR's history. I'll try to find some hard data..

Hedrick Smith's book "The Russians" (the first, Soviet-era edition) touched on this, saying the most prosperous parts of the USSR were Moscow and Leningrad, because they were government "showcases", then the Baltics, because the people actually worked the socialist program as it was intended. The poorest and most crooked parts were the Central Asian republics, again due to the behavior of the people.

 

[Maeglin]

There are multiple possibilities. I think a realistic one, in terms of maintaining living standards without dismantling the system, would be a closer relationship with Beijing: the Soviets provide the Chinese with raw materials, the Chinese provide the Soviets with the finished goods (Moscow was already doing this with the GDR). Rather than pretending to relive its 1970 superpower status, the Soviets would have to Know Their Limits - the era of bankrolling third world liberation movements would be over, and vying with the USA would be out of the question.

 

[Sarthak]

Well at least if the the education and health system remains intact then Eurasia as a whole will already be far better.

 

[Darzin]

I don't think a surviving USSR would do very well in the 21st century. The 21st century has seen a massive increase in globalization and digitilization and I don't see the USSR adapting well to either. I expect the USSR and the Soviet block (if it still exists) to be somewhat of an anachranism closer to modern Cuba then North Korea and struggling to integrate to the global market. I expect early 2000s articles ITT to have many decline of the Soviets articles to go along with the rise of China articles. And finally as China surpasses the Soviet Union I expect China will have somewhat better relations with both as a "third" power.

 

[Johnrankins]

Hedrick Smith's book "The Russians" (the first, Soviet-era edition) touched on this, saying the most prosperous parts of the USSR were Moscow and Leningrad, because they were government "showcases", then the Baltics, because the people actually worked the socialist program as it was intended. The poorest and most crooked parts were the Central Asian republics, again due to the behavior of the people.

The Baltics were also richer because the Soviets got so much flak about them that they didn't want even more bad PR about them by making them impoverished. The USSR actually spent more per capita in the Baltics than other republics of the USSR to try and show they weren't oppressive colonizers.

 

[Johnrankins]

How will computers affect Soviet planning if they stick to a command economy?

Not as much as you think, it can be shown that it is literally mathematically impossible to make enough calculations for an industrialized command economy to be as efficient as a market one. There are too many products and the calculations are highly recursive. Back in the 1960's a Soviet economist made the calculation (which was suppressed in the USSR) that even if the entire known universe was made up of nothing but computers that did nothing but calculate prices it still couldn't calculate the five year plan within five years.

 

[durante]

Computers will be used to improve industrial efficiency and spy on the populace in ways that would make Orwell's 1984 look like an Ayn Rand short story.

Yeah, unlike the western democracies, which would never use technology to spy on their citizens.

 

[Onslow123]

There are two options for attitudes towards the environmentalists and environment in general. To understand this duality, one must go down in history to the mid-1980s, when mass protests and higher level opposition against phosphorite mining plans took place in the Estonian SSR under perestroika conditions. It is recommended to read from Wikipedia article about the aftermath of Phosphorite War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorite_War
The simplest expression of the consequences is that after that, Estonians and Lithuanians tried to outdo each other with powerful actions and dragged Latvia along and the end result was the dissolution of USSR.

Thus post-referendum USSR has two options:
1) The environment is important, because if people perceive the threat to the environment, it will lead to mass protests, see what happened to the Baltics.
2) The bad environmentalist nationalist did destroy the USSR in its biggest extent, environmentalist can possibly have hidden agenda from other interest groups.

Thus, the status of environmental protection depends on what is given priority in history, whether it is a problem or an unexpected consequence.

 

[RY1985]

Just to share some thinking I had on this post, would there be an EU? Or a more militarized EU?

The EU, in my opinion, was really about economic integration, and if Warsaw pact was still around, economic integration might be difficult.

 

[Diverge]

Just to share some thinking I had on this post, would there be an EU? Or a more militarized EU?

The EU, in my opinion, was really about economic integration, and if Warsaw pact was still around, economic integration might be difficult.

Who says the Warsaw Pact has to exist? If, as originally proposed by @Pauh the federalist, the USSR survives as an equal federation, then the POD is after the 1989 revolutions, in which case eastern Europe has already embraced liberalism. The EU is most likely formed along similar lines - the question is, how far will a modernised and rejuvenated Soviet Union affect E. Europe's fate? IOTL, an emasculated Russia was perfect for NATO expansion as there wasn't any fear of reprisal, but Moscow will still probably attempt to exert influence on the ex-WTO as early as the late 90s ITTL: in which case, EU membership and NATO partnership for eastern European countries might remain an ongoing issue even today.
It's also possible that the USSR and WTO do survive, of course. It all depends on the Kremlin: if a more successful reformer takes the reins it's quite possible to see Eastern and Western Europe uniting or at least communicating in some way despite official military rivalries, whereas such a process may be impeded or flat out not occur if a hardliner takes power.
In most scenarios I find the West competing for the favour of Eastern Europe by the 2010s - after all, the further technology advances, the harder it is to seal a region off from the rest of the world.

 

[Alexniko]

Not as much as you think, it can be shown that it is literally mathematically impossible to make enough calculations for an industrialized command economy to be as efficient as a market one. There are too many products and the calculations are highly recursive. Back in the 1960's a Soviet economist made the calculation (which was suppressed in the USSR) that even if the entire known universe was made up of nothing but computer that did nothing but calculate prices it still couldn't calculate the five year plan within five years.

Mind to post your source? The claim sounds pretty weird.

Moreover, which prices are we talking about? The theoretical market price for every product over a five year period? First of all, that's not what Gosplan intended to do. It should be self evident that, in a planned economy, not every product has to be sold at it's market price. Furthermore, price setting was actually pretty simple in a soviet-style centrally planned economy - every product was sold at a state set price. For example, a piece of bread cost 5 Pfennige in all East German bakeries, and this price didn't change for decades. Secondly, it is just as impossible to accurately estimate the theoretical market prices for every product in a market economy. And that's not how a market economy works either. Contrary to what it's advocates claim, there is no invisible hand of the market - price setting, on a grand scale, is allways done via trial and error..