PC: "Deng-ist" reforms in the USSR and the best decade to start them

When is the latest that Deng Xiaoping style market reform could have saved the USSR, if adopted

  • 1940s

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • 1950s

    Votes: 8 17.4%
  • 1960s

    Votes: 20 43.5%
  • 1970s

    Votes: 10 21.7%
  • 1980s

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • never

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • Total voters
    46

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Plausibility-check: Could the USSR during its post-WWII history have pursued Deng Xiaoping style free market reforms?

Could those have made CPSU rule viable over the long-term?

In China, the reforms started first in agriculture and small enterprises in the late 70s.

these reforms had a bit of resemblance to the NEP reforms of the USSR in the 1920s.

To a certain extent the USSR in 1978-1991 was already too industrialized to start market reforms in agriculture and have them work, or at least have them match the positive results obtained in China.

However, might Chinese style reforms have saved the Soviet economy if launched a bit earlier in Soviet economic and political history?

If so, when was the latest point such reforms would have been likely to save the economy and the regime?

The late 40s? The 1950s? The 1960s?, the 1970s? the 1980s?
 
Brezhnev in the '60s learns from observing that the mistake Khrushchev made was that he didn't (?) coalition build and include people in the loop.

And economically, maybe the idea is that mature industries can best be run centrally and efficiently whereas newer industries benefit from experimentation?
 
Last edited:
Mao dies in the late 50s, and economic reform occurs in the 1960s after the great leap forward fails after a year. Relations between the two soviet powers doesn't diminish.
Khruschev stays in power barely as the Cuban missile crisis doesn't occur (Castro and co has worse luck ITTL) but still has agricultural failures still hanging over his head. He looks to the PRC for reform however he still has to be careful for fear of being ousted.
As the economic situation seems to be on an upwards trajectory his position is secure.
 
You could have Malenkov come to power. He would still maintain a Stalinist government (although not so...gulag-y), but was a known advocate for refocusing Soviet industry on consumer goods, and was not a fan of the arms race.
If the Soviets begin shifting their economy to consumer merchandise, this could provide the groundwork for future reforms.
 
FWIU, Kosgyin saw reforms roughly around these lines in the 1960's, but the reform program stagnated in subsequent years, due to backlash (which in turn played a role in the Czech invasion), and Breznev being cold to them; so it could be if Breznev died (say 1969 assassination attempt is successful), that they sound be the start of a Soviet "Dengism".
 
Last edited:
One big wrinkle - the surge in productivity in agriculture in China led, by definition, to a surge in rural unemployment, and an urgent need to create low-paying manufacturing jobs. China was lucky that a) there was a huge and wealthy Chinese-speaking diaspora willing to do their patriotic duty and invest and b) the US saw a strategic need to promote the development of an ally against the USSR, granting China MFN trade status in 1979.

Condition (a) doesn't exist, politics or no politics. Maybe the EEC will grant the Soviet Bloc MFN status to satisfy condition (b), but that either requires the breakdown of NATO or the breakdown of the Soviet Bloc.

Without the investment and export markets that the west (or western-aligned powers) provides, such reforms will be stillborn and cause a disaster.
 
The main problem here, in my view, is that China was an underdeveloped country when Deng began his reforms, with a small industrial base and a general lack of an existing large backlog of legacy sectors dependent on government subsidies. This enabled the new, more liberalized China to start developing from a "blank slate", as it will, minimizing any pain to the populace over the transition.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was an industrial country with a large and inefficient secondary sector. Market reforms would entail much greater disruption to the average Soviet citizen, as the liberaliztion of prices and the general move towards profitability would require many, or at least some, subsidized industries to be simply closed rather than continue to leech off the state coffers. Witness the former Eastern Bloc's pain during its 1990s market reforms, although those were more drastic and more immediate than the gradualism the USSR would adopt.

Really, the key (for the Soviet leadership) would be to keep firm political control despite economic liberalization, as China has done. Glasnost was a move towards freedom, but it ultimately ended Soviet communism.
 
FWIU, Kosgyin saw reforms roughly around these lines in the 1960's, but the reform program stagnated in subsequent years, due to backlash (which in turn played a role in the Czech invasion), and Breznev being cold to them; so it could be if Breznev died (say 1969 assassination attempt is successful), that they sound be the start of a Soviet "Dengism".

So far as I know, Kosygin wasn't advocating a true "market" reform - he was trying to tweak Soviet planning and organization to be more like the methods that were being tried out in Easter Europe at the time - so Goulash Communism writ large.

Since one of the central problems the Soviets had is that they lacked a market to find real prices for goods (and therefore struggled to make efficient planning choices), I'm not sure Kosygin's reforms would have improved the Soviet situation very much. Certainly they couldn't bring the all-out revolution that Deng brought to China.

(It's a bit funny really, I used to be a strong proponent of Kosygin as a potential savior of the Soviet Union, but nowadays I have a much more cautious view of him, even as my earlier enthusiasm seems to have rubbed off on others. That said, Kosygin did have some very smart ideas, due to actually having a background in management, which was looked down on by most Soviet politicians - one of his reforms, for example, would have made value-added a key metric for measuring the success of enterprises in meeting their Plan targets - the Soviets actually targeting efficiency with a real will had the potential to bring huge gains for their economy since efficiency was so darn low.)

To answer the original question, I think that the latest period that had the most promise for "Deng-style" market reforms is the 80s. Even as late as 1987. The Soviet Union could have kept things going if Gorbachev hadn't staked the Party through the heart in that year. After Gorby wrecked the party, the glue for the whole system was removed, and the state and economy could not function without the Party.

However, to get market reform, you first need an big anti-corruption campaign, particularly targeted at Party bosses and Enterprise managers. (Since corruption was a big economic lubricant in the Soviet system, prosecuting all cases of corruption would lead to most of the population being in trouble.) This vital first step was just what Deng did in China before he launched his market reforms. Having a market whose rules are made by a dishonest government leads to bad, bad trouble and making the market more efficient in such circumstances can actually make problems worse.

As such, a good PoD would be Andropov coming to power earlier or having better health (and thus being able to govern longer). He wasn't the sort of man to introduce real market reforms, but he did have a real interest in making things less corrupt. As such, Andropov could prepare the way for a successor who would consider real market reforms.

fasquardon
 
Has to be after Stalin, and probably even after the failure of more moderate reforms to really undermine faith that the system could be reformed to work properly. In the 20s and 30s, the Bolsheviks were bound to attempt to realize their dream of a collectivist post-capitalist society which would deliver justice and equality for all. Even the likes of Bukharin wouldn't have been satisfied with eternal capitalism. It's only after they experience first hand that their goals aren't as achievable as they imagined that they might be persuaded to give up on the experiment. So I'd say late 60s or so.
 
Top