What would it take for the Soviet Union to remain in existance today?

Slower and steadier liberalization perhaps?

That's what I'd go for, too. Perhaps Stalin's excesses result in a steady liberalization starting 1954-55, leading to first the end of strict communism into more socialist capitalism (accomplished by mid-1970s), followed by increasing freedoms for people.

However, freedoms stop with nationalist idiots. Trying to undermine or destroy the USSR will still have VERY serious consequences. (Read: a bullet in the head.) This would result in likely economic growth in the USSR through the 1950s and 1960s as in OTL, but it wouldn't stagnate as it did in OTL, instead keeping on going through the 1970s and 1980s. Think China today for a good example of what to expect.

By the mid-1980s, prosperity has truly come to the USSR, though the USA still regards them as the "Evil Empire". Both sides spend substantially on their militaries in an escalating game of chicken, and one that doesn't fall off in the 1990s. A much bigger Soviet economy allows for its outrageous military spending without destroying the economy. By 1995, though, both sides realize the costs are too much and start to ease off somewhat.

Through the Cold War, the Soviets continue to support many groups all across the world battling imperialism and American hegemony. The USA does the same except in reverse. After Vietnam and Afghanistan however, neither side is terribly wishing to commit its own people to such battles, so the "proxy wars" rage around the world through the 1980s and 1990s, and some flashpoints last considerably longer than in OTL - South Africa/Namibia/Rhodesia, Iran/Iraq, southeast Asia, pretty much all of South America.
 

Fatal Wit

Banned
Is the Soviet Union really comparable to China though? I mean, surely its a mistake to assume it would parralel China...even closely. The base point the Soviet Union is starting from is far better off then China, for one. Besides that, the international market/domestic economic situation is not comparable in the slightest.

China wouldn't be what it is today without access to American markets, for example. The Soviet Union wouldn't have that... so the overall dynamic isn't really comparable. Of course, a freeing up of the economic system is almost certain to be beneficial, but surely its flawed to draw parralels with China?

I'm not entirely sure that their is a parralel. Has their ever been a state that has liberalised its economy internally while remaining isolated from external trade- well, that might not be entirely true, the fellow members of the bloc plus the Arabs and maybe India would be all too happy to trade. And maybe even America would lower its guard in economic terms- it would probably benefit their economy, in the short term at least.
 
...
I'm not entirely sure that their is a parralel. Has their ever been a state that has liberalised its economy internally while remaining isolated from external trade- well, that might not be entirely true, the fellow members of the bloc plus the Arabs and maybe India would be all too happy to trade. And maybe even America would lower its guard in economic terms- it would probably benefit their economy, in the short term at least.
I wonder what a Warsaw Pact version of the EU would look like. I would say a considerable liberalization would be required as OTL WP trade was ideologically allergic to free trade. Suppose such a system exists, and perhaps with China part of the trade zone, it could be a self sufficient system (together with the non-aligned states).
 
How about simply Andropov living longer, and someone sharing his views succeeding him as head of state?

Another thought: more than once Chinese officials in interviews (and Chinese I've talked with) have said they learned the lessons of 1989-91 and made it a point to keep the CP's power monopoly intact even as the economy went capitalist. What if Deng Xiaoping's economic liberalization, in full swing by 1987, had led to a push for political pluralism which actually managed to cause some internal chaos? After all, Tiananmen Square was essentially the squashing of unarmed protestors, and even in the Soviet Union the Chinese government was seen as a gang of butchers.

But what if some real signs of communist-vs.-noncommunist civil war were seen, or there was a vote for secession from China by Tibetans or Uighurs, with gunrunning through Tajikistan or Pakistan? That might have inoculated Moscow against the temptation to let people vote for whomever they wanted.
 
Top