USSR democratizes right after Stalin dies?

I really think that Portugal in 80s and Soviet Union aren't really fit for comparison. Apples and oranges.

This wasn't exactly meant to be a comparison. What I was trying to do was providing an example to illustrate the fact that a state can be democratic while holding and official socialist ideology.

Is there a particular reason why you think this wouldn't be feasable in the Soviet Union?
 
Last edited:
Man, if you don't see the difference between Soviet Union ( during whole it's existence ) and post-Carnation Revolution Portugal, then I can't help you...
 
Man, if you don't see the difference between Soviet Union ( during whole it's existence ) and post-Carnation Revolution Portugal, then I can't help you...

Of course I see the difference, they're completely incomparable in most regards, but, as I said, my mention to Portugal was merely intended to provide an example of how a country can be democratic and officially socialist at the same time. You can forget about if you want, it's just an example anyway.

My argument was that the Soviet Union could become a democracy without abdicating from it's official socialist ideology. Why exactly do you think that's impossible?
 
Because you can't have "avantguard of workers class", KGB, locking the enemies in lunatic asylums, operating the gulag's, banning private enterprise, killing the Kulak's etc. in a democratic and free society.

And without all of that, that country wouldn't be the Soviet Union.

If Portugal had any of that during 70-s/80-s, then you have a valid comparison.
 
If Portugal had any of that during 70-s/80-s, then you have a valid comparison.

Again, it was not meant to be a comparison.

Because you can't have "avantguard of workers class", KGB, locking the enemies in lunatic asylums, operating the gulag's, banning private enterprise, killing the Kulak's etc. in a democratic and free society.

And without all of that, that country wouldn't be the Soviet Union.

What?! OK, now you've definitly lost me, you think that soviet national identity was defined solely by totalitarianism? Not socialism, not being a worker's state, not having the soviets as it's de jure main decision bodies and not being the successor to the historical russian empire, but totalitarianism? You think that having gulags is an absolute requirement for a country to be called the "Soviet Union"? That's far too specific to be a requirement for nationhood.

Let's imagine Kosygin managed to consolidate power in the 60s and started introducing liberal reforms. By the 70s, the Prague Spring would occur, Kosygin wouldn't crush it, and liberal ideas would spread even further throughout the Eastern Bloc. Under these circunstances, it should be possible for a full democracy to be in place by the 1980s. This democracy would present itself as the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and that's also the name the whole world would know it by. It would have the same exact borders of OTL's Soviet Union, it would also share it's symbols and it's constitutional commitment to the ideology of socialism. It could even be ruled as a "Soviet Democracy", like it was originally supposed to be according to it's lenninist constitution. I just don't see how that country could not be considered to be the soviet union!

Granted, it'd be very different from OTL's Soviet Union, but I don't see how that means it would stop be the same country. A change in political regime doesn't strip a country of its nationhood. I recognize that if they removed Socialism from it's place as the sate's official ideology, you would have a point, since socialism was obviously integral to soviet national identity, but you definitly can't say the same things for gulags and the KGB.
 
Again, it was not meant to be a comparison.



What?! OK, now you've definitly lost me, you think that soviet national identity was defined solely by totalitarianism? Not socialism, not being a worker's state, not having the soviets as it's de jure main decision bodies and not being the successor to the historical russian empire, but totalitarianism? You think that having gulags is an absolute requirement for a country to be called the "Soviet Union"? That's far too specific to be a requirement for nationhood.

Let's imagine Kosygin managed to consolidate power in the 60s and started introducing liberal reforms. By the 70s, the Prague Spring would occur, Kosygin wouldn't crush it, and liberal ideas would spread even further throughout the Eastern Bloc. Under these circunstances, it should be possible for a full democracy to be in place by the 1980s. This democracy would present itself as the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and that's also the name the whole world would know it by. It would have the same exact borders of OTL's Soviet Union, it would also share it's symbols and it's constitutional commitment to the ideology of socialism. It could even be ruled as a "Soviet Democracy", like it was originally supposed to be according to it's lenninist constitution. I just don't see how that country could not be considered to be the soviet union!

Granted, it'd be very different from OTL's Soviet Union, but I don't see how that means it would stop be the same country. A change in political regime doesn't strip a country of its nationhood. I recognize that if they removed Socialism from it's place as the sate's official ideology, you would have a point, since socialism was obviously integral to soviet national identity, but you definitly can't say the same things for gulags and the KGB.

And what if, say after sucessful Prague Spring, Poland, Hungary and other WP countries leave the alliance? What if, after that, Ukraine or Estonia decides to get independence? After all, they did "voluntarily" joined the SU- at least in theory? And what if people say: Look, it isn't more Soviet, so why not drop that part from name of state?

Simply, Soviet Union can't survive freedom. As it didn't in OTL. They, MAYBE can keep their territory ( but not without force, as example of Chechenya shows ) and name, but that country will be very different animal than OTL Soviet Union. It will become Russian-Empire-without-Emperor.

It's like speaking of democratic Nazi Germany- a contradiction in terms.
 
And what if, say after sucessful Prague Spring, Poland, Hungary and other WP countries leave the alliance? What if, after that, Ukraine or Estonia decides to get independence? After all, they did "voluntarily" joined the SU- at least in theory? And what if people say: Look, it isn't more Soviet, so why not drop that part from name of state?

All of that could happen, but it isn't in any way certain. If the soviet republics found economic and political benefits in remaining together, I think it's perfectly believable that they could remain together. And the same is true for Warsaw Pact nations. Who knows, maybe someone could actually leave, but that doesn't necessarily have to mean the end of the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact.

Simply, Soviet Union can't survive freedom. As it didn't in OTL.

I think that saying freedom was what caused the fall of the Soviet Union is a huge oversimplification, if not even outright wrong. The rise of nationalism within individual soviet republics was largely fueled by economic recession, the worsening of living conditions and a general discontentment with the status quo (derived mainly from corruption, ineffectivness of government and systematic repression). If the Soviet Union had gradually introduced reforms that ultimately managed to solve these issues in time, I don't think things would have gone down the same way.
 
But then it wouldn't be the Soviet Union, the craddle and champion of World's Communism. And that's it's reason of existance.

I think that you're going back and forth with your arguments, and I'm starting to get confused.

Are you saying that the Soviet Union would necessarily collapse in case it democratized, with most republics secceeding and all that, or are you claiming that a democratized Soviet Union wouldn't be the Soviet Union because, in your view, soviet=gulags?
 

Ok, then I've already adressed both of your points, and both times your response to me consisted of backing off to the other one instead of actually presenting any arguments against my reasoning.

There is no use in adding anything new to what I already said, so I'll just quote my previous posts.

I think that saying freedom was what caused the fall of the Soviet Union is a huge oversimplification, if not even outright wrong. The rise of nationalism within individual soviet republics was largely fueled by economic recession, the worsening of living conditions and a general discontentment with the status quo (derived mainly from corruption, ineffectivness of government and systematic repression). If the Soviet Union had gradually introduced reforms that ultimately managed to solve these issues in time, I don't think things would have gone down the same way.

What?! OK, now you've definitly lost me, you think that soviet national identity was defined solely by totalitarianism? Not socialism, not being a worker's state, not having the soviets as it's de jure main decision bodies and not being the successor to the historical russian empire, but totalitarianism? You think that having gulags is an absolute requirement for a country to be called the "Soviet Union"? That's far too specific to be a requirement for nationhood.

Let's imagine Kosygin managed to consolidate power in the 60s and started introducing liberal reforms. By the 70s, the Prague Spring would occur, Kosygin wouldn't crush it, and liberal ideas would spread even further throughout the Eastern Bloc. Under these circunstances, it should be possible for a full democracy to be in place by the 1980s. This democracy would present itself as the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and that's also the name the whole world would know it by. It would have the same exact borders of OTL's Soviet Union, it would also share it's symbols and it's constitutional commitment to the ideology of socialism. It could even be ruled as a "Soviet Democracy", like it was originally supposed to be according to it's lenninist constitution. I just don't see how that country could not be considered to be the soviet union!

Granted, it'd be very different from OTL's Soviet Union, but I don't see how that means it would stop be the same country. A change in political regime doesn't strip a country of its nationhood. I recognize that if they removed Socialism from it's place as the sate's official ideology, you would have a point, since socialism was obviously integral to soviet national identity, but you definitly can't say the same things for gulags and the KGB.
 
One way for democratization to occur is if Beria were to come to power.

He supported a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe (Finalization of Poland of course) and normalized relations with the United States. If the E. European communist regiemes get toppled in 1956 a la 1989, this could carry onto the Soviet Union and thus topple Beria (who would likely resist any challenge to communist rule in the Soviet Union.
 
Is there any proto-Gorbachev that could take power and succeed? Maybe history would see the Stalin era as the dictatorship of one man in the larger history of a democratic Soviet Union, that one exception to the norm, similar to the ACW in American History.

Short answer is no. The necessary building blocks simply weren't in place. If post-1991 Russia failed to succeed, I would think it would probably be impossible for a functioning democracy to emerge in the aftermath of Stalin's death. In fact, I have grave doubts we will ever see an actual democratic Russia in our lifetime.
 
I think General Ripper is trying to argue that Totalitarianism is a core part of the Soviet Union, but I disagree. The soviets themselves are an inherently democratic institution, so if they actually could run the SU it could in theory lead to some sort of democracy. That's something I want to stress though, when I mean a democratic Soviet Union, I don't necessarily mean a liberal democratic Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union also had a constitution, which could be improved and ammended, unlike Nazi Germany in which Hitler basically ruled by decree and fear.

Because you can't have "avantguard of workers class", KGB, locking the enemies in lunatic asylums, operating the gulag's, banning private enterprise, killing the Kulak's etc. in a democratic and free society.

I think this is like saying that the USA can't be a democratic and free society because of the CIA, MK Ultra, Guantanamo, drone strikes, etc.
 
I think this is like saying that the USA can't be a democratic and free society because of the CIA, MK Ultra, Guantanamo, drone strikes, etc.

This isn't quite right because the things he mentioned are a lot more extreme than that. If the USA had something comparable to gulags and the KGB, then it definitly wouldn't be a democratic society.

Anyway, I don't think it makes any sense at all to say to say that the Soviet needs to be totalitarian to be the Soviet Union. Nationhood is definitly not defined by a particular political regime, at least not with that specificity. Granted, we're talking about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, so we would probably need to have socialism and the soviets to still call it the Soviet Union. Those things are integral to soviet identity, but totalitarianism isn't.

I think General Ripper is trying to argue that Totalitarianism is a core part of the Soviet Union, but I disagree. The soviets themselves are an inherently democratic institution, so if they actually could run the SU it could in theory lead to some sort of democracy.

I completely agree with this. If political power is tranfered from the CPSU to the soviets and free elections are organized, we end up with a Soviet Union that is not only democratic but also arguably more soviet than the previous regime.

That's something I want to stress though, when I mean a democratic Soviet Union, I don't necessarily mean a liberal democratic Soviet Union.

Well, this actually depends on how you define "liberal". I can imagine a Soviet Union where people can actually experience a great level of civil and political freedoms...

The Soviet Union also had a constitution, which could be improved and ammended, unlike Nazi Germany in which Hitler basically ruled by decree and fear.

I don't really think a "Democratic Nazi Germany" would be impossible either, though. Not all nazis agreed with Hitler's absolute rule at 100%, so I guess there could theoretically be a state that oficially enderosed nazism and practive democracy. This is an issue for another thread, though.
 
Top