According to Wikipedia, Goulash communism (AKA Kadarism) is a style of communism practiced by post-1956 Hungary, which advocated for more human rights and a more open market (atleast from what I believe). So, the question is how could the USSR adopt this kind of socialism before its collapse in 1991 and how or what would the consequences be for such an outcome?
 
More or less the same results, socialist rule in Hungary collapsed along with the rest of the Warsaw Pact. Human rights and open markets sound nice, but there were too many perverse incentives at play to make the socialist economies work.

Command economies couldn't really make the transition from extensive growth to intensive growth that a normal developed economies did. The state planners could produce growth by adding more inputs (building more factories, moving excess laborers from subsistence agriculture to the conventional economy, etc.), but they were horrible at increasing the productivity of existing industries, or doing more with less in terms of natural resource inputs. This type of economy could only measure growth in terms of quantity, but not quality.

Individual enterprises had an incentive to under-report their production capacity because that would make the targets easier to fulfill for the next plan. There was no market mechanism or prices to disincentive the hoarding of natural resource inputs either.

Khrushchev's virgin lands campaign were a perfect example of this. Instead of increasing the productivity of the land that was already under cultivation, Khrushchev just tried to expand agricultural production by cultivating more land with the same levels of technology. By the 1960s, the USSR had to import grain from the West to feed itself.
 
By the 1960s, the USSR had to import grain from the West to feed itself.

uhm,citation for this? As far as I know the soviets were entirely self-sufficient foodwise and imported western grain because of a combination of the political decision to increase meat production and economical incentives to do this via importing fodder.
 
uhm,citation for this? As far as I know the soviets were entirely self-sufficient foodwise and imported western grain because of a combination of the political decision to increase meat production and economical incentives to do this via importing fodder.
Here's a source on the imports, the data is from the US Department of Agriculture: https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=imports

The Soviet Union really shot itself in the foot with collective agriculture.
 
Here's a source on the imports, the data is from the US Department of Agriculture: https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=su&commodity=wheat&graph=imports

The Soviet Union really shot itself in the foot with collective agriculture.

ok,I was maybe unclear. I am aware the soviet union imported large quantities of western grain. I disputed your assertion this was because it needed it to "feed itself",when all I have ever heard about is that it was the result of political and economic decisions related to meat production,and not actually requiered for feeding the population (given the soviets also exported tons of grains,this is even more likely).
 
ok,I was maybe unclear. I am aware the soviet union imported large quantities of western grain. I disputed your assertion this was because it needed it to "feed itself",when all I have ever heard about is that it was the result of political and economic decisions related to meat production,and not actually requiered for feeding the population (given the soviets also exported tons of grains,this is even more likely).
Yes, the grain imports were in order to increase meat production. Without it the Soviets wouldn't have starved, but a persistent scarcity of meat would've been a source of popular discontent over the economy. The Soviet economy couldn't satisfy Soviet consumers' demands in terms of food variety.

This news article from the 1980s goes further into the topic of meat production in the USSR: In USSR, more meat is not enough.
Still, despite all efforts to increase meat supplies, official statistics indicate that per capita meat consumption has remained about the same over past few years. Population growth is clearly part of the reason.

So, too, is the notorious inefficiency of the Soviet agricultural system, with its stress on collective and state-owned farms. One telltale example: In 1983, the United States, with only 70 percent as many hogs as the Soviet Union, produced 20 percent more pork

Indeed, the amount of meat the average Soviet citizen consumes each year - 57 kilograms - is well below what the Soviet government itself defines as a ''rational norm'' of 70 kg. The government says it plans to meet that target in 1990. Whether that target will be met is anybody's guess.
 
Yes, the grain imports were in order to increase meat production. Without it the Soviets wouldn't have starved, but a persistent scarcity of meat would've been a source of popular discontent over the economy. The Soviet economy couldn't satisfy Soviet consumers' demands in terms of food variety.

This news article from the 1980s goes further into the topic of meat production in the USSR: In USSR, more meat is not enough.
Anyway,the meat shortages were obvious in the 1970’s and going from bad to worse with a passage of time. So, were the intentions,they failed. Pretty much as everything else.
As far as Hungary was involved, it did not have collective farms but rather cooperatives. As a result it was one of the best fed barracks in the “camp”.
 
Anyway,the meat shortages were obvious in the 1970’s and going from bad to worse with a passage of time. So, were the intentions,they failed. Pretty much as everything else.
As far as Hungary was involved, it did not have collective farms but rather cooperatives. As a result it was one of the best fed barracks in the “camp”.
Yeah, Hungary was one of the least bad places to live in the Warsaw Pact. Romania was probably the worst in terms of the overbearing security state and its living standards, especially by the 1980s.
 
My answer would be, prevent Stalin from finally consolidating power in the late 1920s (1927-1928), and let the 'right deviationists' (Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky) run the show. They were okay with the New Economy Politics going on and didn't plan to dismantle it in order to fuel the OTL's crash course industrialization. Of course, that doesn't mean the resulting regime would be as liberal as Kádár's Hungary, but it would be at least somewhat less repressive than IOTL.
 
My answer would be, prevent Stalin from finally consolidating power in the late 1920s (1927-1928), and let the 'right deviationists' (Bukharin, Rykov and Tomsky) run the show. They were okay with the New Economy Politics going on and didn't plan to dismantle it in order to fuel the OTL's crash course industrialization. Of course, that doesn't mean the resulting regime would be as liberal as Kádár's Hungary, but it would be at least somewhat less repressive than IOTL.
In that case then we'd definitely expect a different eastern front and world war aftermath.
 
Yes, the WW2 remains a big unknown. I don't take for granted the idea that without the Stalinist industrialization (and militarization), the USSR would have been helpless against Germany, but I don't take for granted that the Right Opposition would have prevented somehow the rise of the Nazis or would have helped to create an effective collective security system either.
 
A USSR with a better human rights record and more consumer-focused economy might mean a softer landing once the collapse comes. I'm being purposefully kind of flippant, but where riots were happening elsewhere, Hungary's revolution featured a picnic.
 
Top