The small countries of Eastern Europe all flirted with more consumer-orientated versions of Communism while spending very little on their militaries. Famous among those, Hungarian ghoulash Communism and Yugoslav Communism. Both of these had issues and most of these issues come down to the lack of real market prices in their economies.
While there are other sorts of consumer orientated Communism that are possible, I think that a less militaristic and consumer-orientated USSR would, if Stalin had still been boss in the 30s, basically look like a giant Hungary or Yugoslavia. IMO that would actually result in the USSR collapsing faster, since consumer subsidies could suck up even more of the scarce economic surplus generated by the economy than the military did (look at modern Western nations, where it is normal to spend around 2/3rds of government expenditure on pensions and healthcare subsidies and equally normal to spend around 10% or less of government expenditure on the military). That in turn would have exacerbated the balance of payments problem, eventually forcing the USSR to cut back and inflict deep austerity on its citizens which (just as in OTL's Eastern Europe) would lead to the collapse of support for the regime.
Now, if Stalin hadn't been boss, then instead of consumer-Stalinism, the USSR might end up developing a more effective sort of consumer Communist system - but, well, I am pessimistic about their chances of finding it.
fasquardon