No reforms: how long does the USSR last after 1985?

No reforms: how long does the USSR last after 1985?

  • 1991

    Votes: 11 15.7%
  • 1996

    Votes: 24 34.3%
  • 2000

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • 2004

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Today

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Total voters
    70

RousseauX

Donor
Economic liberalization without political liberalization, and selling oil.
In the USSR economic liberalization needed political liberalization to happen: the reason why political liberalization occurred in the first place is because the bureaucracy was blocking economic reforms.
 
You can rely on nuclear deterence to ward of NATO

The majority of the army's budget goes into advanced weapons for conventional warfare vs NATO, if you give up conventional militarily parity you can cut the budget. It's not like the US was going to risk nuclear armagaddon by sending troops into the warsaw pact.
Will the generals really like seeing those kinds of budget cuts? And will the soldiers like to see the downsizing?

And this is not to mention that this would basically entail giving up in Afghanistan.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Will the generals really like seeing those kinds of budget cuts? And will the soldiers like to see the downsizing?
In USSR there was very firm civilian control over the military, the generals might not like it, but the party has being very good at reining in the generals since the 1920s
And this is not to mention that this would basically entail giving up in Afghanistan.
Will it really? By the late 1980s-early 1990s Najibullah was holding on with Soviet aid with minimal amount of Soviet troops, it might fall eventually but there's gonna be a decent interval as long as the ussr keeps shipping weapons in
 
the soviet people wasn't starving in 1985-1991 though, there were bread lines but everyone got fed. The starvation happened -after- the soviet collapse
False, there were constant bread riots and risks of starvation before 1991. Hell, the USSR was even forced to import food for it's army (they went to great lengths to acquire 6 million military food packages from the Bundeswehr, for example)
 

Deleted member 97083

In the USSR economic liberalization needed political liberalization to happen: the reason why political liberalization occurred in the first place is because the bureaucracy was blocking economic reforms.
Well then how can you make the bureaucracy more autocratic so that the economic liberalization can be done singlehandedly?
 

RousseauX

Donor
False, there were constant bread riots and risks of starvation before 1991.
Ah, see the goalpost just moved from "people were starving" to "there was risk of starvation", yes there was shortages, but shortages != starvation

Hell, the USSR was even forced to import food for it's army (they went to great lengths to acquire 6 million military food packages from the Bundeswehr, for example)
Germany and Ireland are also net food importers today and are not in danger of starving, importing food != starving
 

RousseauX

Donor
Well then how can you make the bureaucracy more autocratic so that the economic liberalization can be done singlehandedly?
Probably some kind of wholesome purge

In China:

1) Most of China were rural farming peasants who weren't under the direct control of the bureaucracy like the industries were, sot he bureaucracy was a lot less powerful

and

2) the cultural revolution purged the bureaucracy and what's left isn't powerful enough to resist reforms

Since 1) wasn't true in the USSR since sometime around Stalin you have to go with 2) and purge the bureacracy at some point but I don't see that being political palpable in post-Stalin USSR
 
Ah, see the goalpost just moved from "people were starving" to "there was risk of starvation", yes there was shortages, but shortages != starvation
If people had the urge to go to riots, then there was definitely something very bad with the situation they were in. No need to instantly attack how I made a mistake there, I know I made a mistake, people do those all the time. My point still stands, though.

Germany and Ireland are also net food importers today and are not in danger of starving, importing food != starving
The difference is that neither Germany nor Ireland are anywhere near bankruptcy and can thus safely import food. The USSR was out of money, out of gold reserves to back said money and out of debtor trust to acquire new money.
 

Deleted member 97083

Probably some kind of wholesome purge

In China:

1) Most of China were rural farming peasants who weren't under the direct control of the bureaucracy like the industries were, sot he bureaucracy was a lot less powerful

and

2) the cultural revolution purged the bureaucracy and what's left isn't powerful enough to resist reforms

Since 1) wasn't true in the USSR since sometime around Stalin you have to go with 2) and purge the bureacracy at some point but I don't see that being political palpable in post-Stalin USSR
What about selling out to important bureaucrats, making them personally benefit through assets or income from the economic liberalization, in order to gain their support?
 

RousseauX

Donor
My point still stands, though.
No it doesn't, there was being food shortages very bad for decades in the USSR, but the USSR not collapse in 1960s despite food riots. USSR collapse in late 80s-90s because liberalization destroys means of control over people and Republican political leaders.

To put it another way, North Korea has/had actual starvation: glorious leader Kim Jun still in power and parties with dennis rodman.

The difference is that neither Germany nor Ireland are anywhere near bankruptcy and can thus safely import food. The USSR was out of money, out of gold reserves to back said money and out of debtor trust to acquire new money.
TOTAL imports of all goods (not just food) were something like 4-5% of Soviet GDP, the Soviets can cut other stuff to pay for it
 
No it doesn't, there was being food shortages very bad for decades in the USSR, but the USSR not collapse in 1960s despite food riots. USSR collapse in late 80s-90s because liberalization destroys means of control over people and Republican political leaders.
I never said that the USSR collapsed because of food shortages. It was just that by the time 1985 rolled in, the USSR was pretty much bankrupt, which, among other things, by extension meant that the USSR could no longer make up for the food shortages with foreign imports.

TOTAL imports of all goods were something like 4-5% of Soviet GDP, the Soviets can cut other stuff to pay for it
Such cut of imports happened IOTL. Didn't really save them in the end.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Exactly, so the Soviets should be able to do it.
The problem is that I'm not sure if reforms like those are actually helpful

I mean Russia only hit soviet 1989 gdp per capita around 2008 (!!!) so it's not like those reforms gone well for Russia, giving control to a bunch of bureaucrats isn't actually helpful because all you are doing is privatizing the profits while giving them the same capabilities to distort the economy as when they were government employees. Only now they are doing it more openly for private gains.
 

Deleted member 97083

Had they withdrawn Red Army from the Warsaw Pact states at this time?

The problem is that I'm not sure if reforms like those are actually helpful

I mean Russia only hit soviet 1989 gdp per capita around 2008 (!!!) so it's not like those reforms gone well for Russia, giving control to a bunch of bureaucrats isn't actually helpful because all you are doing is privatizing the profits while giving them the same capabilities to distort the economy as when they were government employees. Only now they are doing it more openly for private gains.
Hmm, well they'd at least avoid the upheaval of a new system. They'd have a reduced upheaval of a modified but continuous system.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I never said that the USSR collapsed because of food shortages. It was just that by the time 1985 rolled in, the USSR was pretty much bankrupt, which, among other things, by extension meant that the USSR could no longer make up for the food shortages with foreign imports.


Such cut of imports happened IOTL. Didn't really save them in the end.
Didn't save them in the end because it was a political crisis which destroyed the Union, it fell because it lost control over Republican political elites which took power from the center and dissolved the union. Not because the balance of trade was bad.

by extension meant that the USSR could no longer make up for the food shortages with foreign imports.
think about it the food imports were prob like 1-3% of gdp or something you could just cut 2-3% somewhere else to pay for it if it's really needed
 
Didn't save them in the end because it was a political crisis which destroyed the Union, it fell because it lost control over Republican political elites which took power from the center and dissolved the union. Not because the balance of trade was bad.
No political crisis arises from nowhere. A disastrous state of the economy led to accumulating dissent and dissatisfaction with the regime, Glasnost and Perestroika heightened those tensions, the Baltic States placed the foundations and Yeltsin finished it. Yes, it was a political crisis that destroyed the USSR, but it is like saying that the Battle of Berlin destroyed Nazi Germany. Correct, but it is not the full picture.
 

RousseauX

Donor
A disastrous state of the economy led to accumulating dissent and dissatisfaction with the regime
The economy was worse and people were less well-off in the 30s and 50s than the 80s. As bad as things were 1970s=80s USSR still had more stuff and better food than before.

Communist states are good at suppressing dissent. They have 70 years to make people scared of kgb either arresting them or making sure their kids will never ever get good job or accepted in college if they protest too much.

You are right the economic issues provoked the political issues, just not in the way you are portraying it. It provoked them by inducing Gorbachev to carry out reforms which undermined the control the CPUSSR exercised over the country.

Basically yeah the people are unhappy but nobody thought you could overthrow Communism, the system could weather a bad economy. I know this because it weathered shittier economic conditions than the 1980s ussr did.

Yes, it was a political crisis that destroyed the USSR, but it is like saying that the Battle of Berlin destroyed Nazi Germany. Correct, but it is not the full picture.
Then why is North Korean leader Kim Jun on partying with Dennis Rodman despite having economy which 100x worse than 1985 ussr
 
Top