NationStates Jolt Archive

So I’m half way into an essay on the Vikings while I was browsing through Wikipedia and came across the entry on the USSR. Wouldn’t be interesting to speculate on the “what if” of the USSR in the 21st Century? So my question to you is what ten things should the Soviet Union (the USSR) done to preserve itself into the 21st Century Please NO pro-/anti-communist/USSR/socialism/capitalism posts since this is NOT the place for that kind of debate.

1] Socialise most industry and businesses; invest real authority in the hands of actual workers to run and organise their own workplaces.
2] Phase out compulsory use of USSR manufactured goods and parts by industry and the retail sector. Alternatively establish a quota minimum for the use of USSR components ensuring the survival of the various industries in the USSR but forcing them to produce better quality goods to meet Western standards.
3] Establish an international trading agreement between communist states and republics in the USSR to limit the importation of goods to those that are manufactured on a “level playing field” that is goods that meet the same domestic wage and safety guidelines employed in the USSR. The eventual purpose would be to establish a counter-part to the WTO based on expanding labour and workplace conditions rather than racing to the bottom.
4] Reduce military funding and redirect it to strategic arms rather than maintaining a mass-force. Funding would be directed primarily in the areas of; long-range value-targeting nuclear missiles, improving the stealth capabilities of Soviet submarines, developing a appropriate cruise missile counterparts and improving the fighter capacity of the air force.
5] Establishing long-term access to deep water ports outside Soviet territory to counter US naval supremacy and enhance Soviet global power projection.
6] Begin serious negotiations on reducing global arms as the USSR gains improving value-targeting nuclear missile technology to replace their older force targeting systems.
7] Renew Sino-Soviet friendship to alleviate the troop deployments along the boarder and expand Soviet exports as well as attempting to achieve the goals of points 3 and 5
8] Redirect funding towards a major housing program and business investment scheme to absorb the population of decommissioned soldiers, alleviate over-crowding, reduce civil discontent and promote economic enterprise.
9] Follow the Chinese example of importing sophisticated technologies and then retro-engineer superior western technology especially in the form of electronics and consumer goods.
10] Focus on expanding USSR exporting industry in manufacturing and heavy industry while relaxing government control to allow for a broader and dynamic domestic economy to expand in the areas of retail, hospitality and light industry.

Well, one of the biggest killers was the rise of nationalist sentiment in many of the constituent republics. There wasn't a lot they could have done to stop the Baltic nations going astray without extreme measures; as they were basically under a military occupation since the 40's anyway. That, and religious tensions in the Caucasus were causing problems, and then there's the war in Afghanistan and ongoing casualties that hadn't exactly endeared the regime to the people. Forget the economy; I think those were the major problems.

The only way it could have held onto power is by reverting back to Stalin-style repression, and we can certainly be glad that it didn't come to that.

To truly "fix" it would mean going back in time - certainly before Stalin, perhaps even further.

Ownership of Vodka!

The main thing to do would have been to reward their own accountants and other data-gatherers/reporters for telling the plain facts, and not the make-belief version of facts.

You can't run any ship-of-state if all your navigation instruments continuously tell you: relax, everything is A-ok.

The deck-officers ( think: polit-buro ) seldom if ever even got the plain indication that things were not working out - until it was too late!

Interesting but the rise of nationalist sentiment was spurred by Gorbachev's policy of openess so without that policy it would have remained submerged as it had done for the lost 70 years. I also think the Soviet Union could have crushed the uprising in the Blatics (not saying i would support it) which was also an outcome of the changes during the 80s with the intention to draft a new Constitution for federation which limited Russian options at the time. Although the whole Afghanisatn thing was a total mess and should have been totally avoided. I think it's highly likely that the USSR could have continued in one form or another into the big 21C

Interesting but the rise of nationalist sentiment was spurred by Gorbachev's policy of openess so without that policy it would have remained submerged as it had done for the lost 70 years. I also think the Soviet Union could have crushed the uprising in the Blatics (not saying i would support it) which was also an outcome of the changes during the 80s with the intention to draft a new Constitution for federation which limited Russian options at the time. Although the whole Afghanisatn thing was a total mess and should have been totally avoided. I think it's highly likely that the USSR could have continued in one form or another into the big 21C

Aw, bull! If there were no nat.sentiments, how come Stalin had to/chose to stamp down on it?
Nationalist sentiments are just a given, an an ever-present thing in any semi-advanced ( or better ) society.

So I’m half way into an essay on the Vikings while I was browsing through Wikipedia and came across the entry on the USSR. Wouldn’t be interesting to speculate on the “what if” of the USSR in the 21st Century? So my question to you is what ten things should the Soviet Union (the USSR) done to preserve itself into the 21st Century Please NO pro-/anti-communist/USSR/socialism/capitalism posts since this is NOT the place for that kind of debate.

1] Socialise most industry and businesses; invest real authority in the hands of actual workers to run and organise their own workplaces.
2] Phase out compulsory use of USSR manufactured goods and parts by industry and the retail sector. Alternatively establish a quota minimum for the use of USSR components ensuring the survival of the various industries in the USSR but forcing them to produce better quality goods to meet Western standards.
3] Establish an international trading agreement between communist states and republics in the USSR to limit the importation of goods to those that are manufactured on a “level playing field” that is goods that meet the same domestic wage and safety guidelines employed in the USSR. The eventual purpose would be to establish a counter-part to the WTO based on expanding labour and workplace conditions rather than racing to the bottom.
4] Reduce military funding and redirect it to strategic arms rather than maintaining a mass-force. Funding would be directed primarily in the areas of; long-range value-targeting nuclear missiles, improving the stealth capabilities of Soviet submarines, developing a appropriate cruise missile counterparts and improving the fighter capacity of the air force.
5] Establishing long-term access to deep water ports outside Soviet territory to counter US naval supremacy and enhance Soviet global power projection.
6] Begin serious negotiations on reducing global arms as the USSR gains improving value-targeting nuclear missile technology to replace their older force targeting systems.
7] Renew Sino-Soviet friendship to alleviate the troop deployments along the boarder and expand Soviet exports as well as attempting to achieve the goals of points 3 and 5
8] Redirect funding towards a major housing program and business investment scheme to absorb the population of decommissioned soldiers, alleviate over-crowding, reduce civil discontent and promote economic enterprise.
9] Follow the Chinese example of importing sophisticated technologies and then retro-engineer superior western technology especially in the form of electronics and consumer goods.
10] Focus on expanding USSR exporting industry in manufacturing and heavy industry while relaxing government control to allow for a broader and dynamic domestic economy to expand in the areas of retail, hospitality and light industry.


A lot of these are easier said than done.

For example, the idea of establishing deep water ports outside of Soviet territory has been a Russian goal since the time of the Tsars.

In addition, the idea of simply switching from conventional to strategic arms while logical is also a 'courageous' policy for any Soviet head of government. The threat of a military backed coup was always present and if I am not mistaken, I believe Khrushchev lost power for suggesting that very thing.

Let's assume that Gorbachev died from an overdose of birthmark remover while a teenager and perestroika never occurred and the USSR was able to hold itself together by whatever means. This means they may have become increasingly concerned by China's growing power and may have instituted reforms similar to the Chinese. That is deregulation of light industry and agriculture while maintianing a firm grip on heavy industry and convertability of currency and allowing only slow and gradual political reform. One could argue if that happened the Soviet people might be as free today as the Russians are under Putin and with a much better economic situation.

Interesting but the rise of nationalist sentiment was spurred by Gorbachev's policy of openess so without that policy it would have remained submerged as it had done for the lost 70 years.
I'd argue it was around before that. I think the big starter was the rise of the Solidarnosc movement in Poland; this contributed to popular unrest in the Baltics. Glasnost came later.

I also think the Soviet Union could have crushed the uprising in the Blatics (not saying i would support it)

Oh, absolutely; hence why I mentioned "Stalin-like repression".

This would have been difficult, though - as Soviet troops were tied down enforcing martial law in the Baltic Republics, what of the Warsaw Pact countries starting to break away, and the unrest in Azerbaijan and Armenia? They wouldn't have been able to hold military control over all of them, they would simply have been over-extended.


which was also an outcome of the changes during the 80s with the intention to draft a new Constitution for federation which limited Russian options at the time.

IIRC, the Baltic nations were offered autonomy within the Union, but declined and went their own way.

Although the whole Afghanisatn thing was a total mess and should have been totally avoided.

Yep - although I believe that the original intention was to destabilise Iran, who were accused of inflaming religious tensions in the Caucasus. Obviously, it failed.

In addition, the idea of simply switching from conventional to strategic arms while logical is also a 'courageous' policy for any Soviet head of government. The threat of a military backed coup was always present and if I am not mistaken, I believe Khrushchev lost power for suggesting that very thing.

Very, very true. Any cut in funding would have been treated with the utmost hostility.

Originally Posted by Greater Sagacity
In addition, the idea of simply switching from conventional to strategic arms while logical is also a 'courageous' policy for any Soviet head of government. The threat of a military backed coup was always present and if I am not mistaken, I believe Khrushchev lost power for suggesting that very thing.

I thought Krushchev lost support when he folded during the Cuban missile crisis? Or possibly because of the bad smell when he took off his shoe.

BogMarsh; I never said there was no nationalist sentiment and I’m well aware of the treatment of Stalin towards anyone who professed an ethnic identity other than Russian. There were two type of nationalism, the developed state-based aspect found in Eastern European satellites such as Poland and Hungary but also ethnic-nationalism or ethno-chauvinism which was predominantly distributed amongst the various peoples of Central Asia such as the Kazaks and the Muslims.

Brains in Tanks; Wasn’t the reform of the Chinese motivated by the conditions of Russia or at least accelerated in which case there would only be a slow but growing stimulus for such change in Russia. However I agree that that is a possible scenario.

Very, very true. Any cut in funding would have been treated with the utmost hostility.

True of course this is all hypothetical and under idealised conditions. Although i suppose the idealised condtion would be that the USSR never formed as it did. A great concrete monster of dogma and death... Ohhh i feel a song coming on.

This would have been difficult, though - as Soviet troops were tied down enforcing martial law in the Baltic Republics, what of the Warsaw Pact countries starting to break away, and the unrest in Azerbaijan and Armenia? They wouldn't have been able to hold military control over all of them, they would simply have been over-extended.


Dont underestamate those Russians ;)
I think the big kick-in-the-balls was the complete alienation. Yes, they were a super-power.. and dont get me wrong, I support SOME of their ideals, but really, the "Democratic" nations just pushed and pushed.. eventually, either war would have broken, or the Reds have fallen. They took a pretty big hit in WW2, of course, and though in theory Communism should be more resiliant than capitalism, in practice it isnt really.
Fact is, if someone OWNS the land, there going to be a lot quicker to rebuild.

Having a nutter in charge didnt help confidence either.. Stalin wasnt the nicest man, and to think that PERHAPS he was killed on an operating table by people trained to help him, says a fair bit about sentiment.

China have succeeded because of their populace.. people either work or they dont, eat or die. Much the same in Russia, I know, but they dont have the agricultural sustainance, and as I mentioned, their factories were hit pretty hard.

-------------------------------
Go easy on me, im tired, and I THOUGHT i knew politics (funny how you begin to doubt yourself after seeing other people.)

BogMarsh; I never said there was no nationalist sentiment and I’m well aware of the treatment of Stalin towards anyone who professed an ethnic identity other than Russian. There were two type of nationalism, the developed state-based aspect found in Eastern European satellites such as Poland and Hungary but also ethnic-nationalism or ethno-chauvinism which was predominantly distributed amongst the various peoples of Central Asia such as the Kazaks and the Muslims.

Brains in Tanks; Wasn’t the reform of the Chinese motivated by the conditions of Russia or at least accelerated in which case there would only be a slow but growing stimulus for such change in Russia. However I agree that that is a possible scenario.


Biotopia, please look at my shortish post on data-gathering.
How can the Leadership react on a situation if it is mushroomed?
( kept in the dark and fed horse-shit ).
They can't tell the difference between no-nationalism and ethno-chauvinism, since they don't get any meaningful report!

The first thing to fix would be the reporting-system.

IMHO: the sovs went bust because they had no way to know about the real problems. You can't fix problems if you are unaware of 'em.
The Chinese, on the otherhand ( communist or whatever ) have ALWAYS maintained extensive reporting-systems, and the people in those systems were encouraged to give the facts!

in theory Communism should be more resiliant than capitalism, in practice it isnt really.

Well that raises an interesting side conversation, was the USSR really communist as it claimed? I wouls disagree that the Soviet state was communist starting with the fact that Communism is described as onyl being capable with the withering of the state... As for some kind of socialism? It's an uneasy question for an actualy socialist but i still don't think they were. After all, Saddam was a president, did that make Iraq democratic?

Although i suppose the idealised condtion would be that the USSR never formed as it did. A great concrete monster of dogma and death... Ohhh i feel a song coming on.
'mmm. While I would have supported the revolution had I been around in '17, I don't think the Bolsheviks were the right group to take power at all.

Well that raises an interesting side conversation, was the USSR really communist as it claimed? I wouls disagree that the Soviet state was communist starting with the fact that Communism is described as onyl being capable with the withering of the state... As for some kind of socialism? It's an uneasy question for an actualy socialist but i still don't think they were. After all, Saddam was a president, did that make Iraq democratic?

It never actually called itself "communist", it only ever claimed to be socialist. (And i'd even dispute that definition, but that's yet another tangent)

I dont know bog.. a lot of countries go through ignoring the key problems. Look at the poverty in the US. Dont get me wrong, most empires that have fallen started the same way, small problems on the inside.
Once the country begins to break, thats when the crap starts to pour in, the civil wars and the like.
Im running basically on Rome, I know they broke to east and west after major social problems.
Anyway, what I am getting at--
Russia had their problems, but commercialism is self propelling. If the world runs on money, it always has something to fall back on. At least the rich or the poor are happy.
Once there is no caste system, things go to piss.
If you follow what I mean (its hard I know, like I said, im about to go to bed),
commercialism is resiliant, whereas communism needs a bit of a kick start.

Brains in Tanks; Wasn’t the reform of the Chinese motivated by the conditions of Russia or at least accelerated in which case there would only be a slow but growing stimulus for such change in Russia. However I agree that that is a possible scenario.

When Deng said, "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, what matters is if it catches the mouse," in the early 80's China was in a weak arsed economic state. Conditions in Russia wouldn't have affected this and so there would have been impetus for reform reguardless of if the USSR was doing well or badly. If the USSR was doing well, fear of being weaker than them could have spurred changes and if the USSR was doing badly fear of going down the same path could also have spured reform. By 1995 it would be clear to the USSR that China was onto a winning strategy. Although the Soviet Union was more regulated than China (mainly due to Chinese weakness than lack of trying) that also means they had more room for improvment once regulation was relaxed and free market reforms gradually introduced. For example just deregulating agriculture would have given the USSR a huge boost. If they began deregulation in 1995 I'm sure that with the natural fertility of the Ukrainian wheatfields the USSR would have been a grain exporter instead of importer by 2000. By 2006 they could have freed up light industry and had over 5% economic growth per year. Possibly 7% or more. This means they would be much better off economically than they are now.

It never actually called itself "communist", it only ever claimed to be socialist. (And i'd even dispute that definition, but that's yet another tangent)

Don't forget though that in 1964 Leonid Brezhnev promised that year that the USSR would achieve "true communism" by 1980 so it was def. on the agenda

Don't forget though that in 1964 Leonid Brezhnev promised that year that the USSR would achieve "true communism" by 1980 so it was def. on the agenda

*facepalm*
UNLESS you have the management-reporting systems in place, how do you know if you have got it or not, or even know if you are heading for it?

*facepalm*
UNLESS you have the management-reporting systems in place, how do you know if you have got it or not, or even know if you are heading for it?

:merrygoround:

Don't forget though that in 1964 Leonid Brezhnev promised that year that the USSR would achieve "true communism" by 1980 so it was def. on the agenda

Heh. Nothing more than propaganda. What one says, and what one does...

Heh. Nothing more than propaganda. What one says, and what one does...

True. Anyway i suppose the point is rather was the collapse of the USSR inevitable or not and if not what could have been done?

I'd like to say that the Soviet Union would have survived past 2000 if they introduced more liberal economic policies whilst maintaining a populist social doctrine, but as we all know the Russians by that time hated the regime and the little bit of power that they were given was just enough to force that regime out.

In reality, the only reasonable way the USSR could be around today is if they had the leadership of a second Stalin, which would have resulted in the crushing of Solidarisc and a socialist crusade in Central Asia to quell the increasingly violent Islamists.

9/11 wouldn't have happened, as al-Qaeda et al would be primarily concerned with the USSR, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a Iran-Soviet war. China, having not learnt its economic lessons from its neighbour, would still be backwards and unable to oppose Russian imperialism in Asia.

America, disheartened by Reagan's failure to 'ban the Soviet Union', and not otherwise inspired by a War on Terror, would be ruled by a period of Isolationist Democrats.

I agree overall that the survival of the USSR would have required economic development. After all poeple eat bread, not ideology.

I thought Krushchev lost support when he folded during the Cuban missile crisis? Or possibly because of the bad smell when he took off his shoe.

In part true also.

Though Khrushchev achieved one of his goals in removing the missiles from Turkey (incidently they were going to be removed anyway), there was perception that he had been humiliated by the west.

This combined with the failure of his Virgin Lands agricultural initiative to which the Soviet Union never fully recovered from (hence the empty shelves and queuing, it is important to know that this didn't occur prior) contributed to great unease within the leadership.

His plans to switch from conventional to strategic arms was the final straw that broke the camels back.

In part true also.

Though Khrushchev achieved one of his goals in removing the missiles from Turkey (incidently they were going to be removed anyway), there was perception that he had been humiliated by the west.

This combined with the failure of his Virgin Lands agricultural initiative to which the Soviet Union never fully recovered from (hence the empty shelves and queuing, it is important to know that this didn't occur prior) contributed to great unease within the leadership.

His plans to switch from conventional to strategic arms was the final straw that broke the camels back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

As to the smelly feet, one cannot say.... :D

As to the smelly feet, one cannot say.... :D

I'm all for the pedonormative version of the revolution comrade.