Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

How would the Soviet Union be if?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 22 Sep 2008, 20:00
A few scenarios that I want opinions on because I'm not sure of my own.

Andropov never died and remained General Secretary?

Chernenko never died and remained General Secretary?

If the 1991 coup ousted Gorbachev?
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 36
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Feb 2009, 04:23
Pioneer
Post 09 Feb 2009, 23:56
In my opinion, if the August 1991 Coup D'Etat succeeded and Gorbachev ended up being disposed, the dissolution process that was in motion that point would have ceased, as the hardliners of the "Communist" Party of the "Soviet" Union (CPSU) would have once again gained the upper hand, and, they would have eventually used their new strength to enforce the hegemony of the U.S.S.R. over the rest of its "sphere of influence", which means, in other words, that they would have begun a series of machinations that would have destroyed the classical Capitalist governments that emerged in its Warsaw Pact satellite states.

Also, if the August 1991 Coup D'Etat succeeded and Gorbachev ended up being disposed, a lot of the things that we have seen since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., such as the dismemberment of "Socialist" Yugoslavia, the adverse effects that North Korea suffered as a result of losing the cheaply priced Coal ore and Petroleum that it needed to function as a viable economic unit, and, of course, Cuba's "Special Period", would not have happened, because, in addition to the CPSU hardliners eventually re-enforcing the hegemony of the U.S.S.R. over its "sphere of influence", these hardliners would have also restored the conditions that allowed for the existence of a North Korea that economically outperformed South Korea, that allowed for the existence of a Cuba that was the second most industrialized country in Latin America and the Caribbean, and, that allowed for the existence of a "Socialist" Yugoslavia that had a neutral position in the conflict between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.
Last edited by Storm on 10 Feb 2009, 21:22, edited 4 times in total.
*Coming Soon!*
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Feb 2009, 01:19
I doubt it was all that easy. The dismemberment process wasn't directed from Moscow. It was directed by corrupt local leaders who wanted more power for themselves. The process of disintegration had begun long before 1991, starting back in '88 and '89 with the declaration of sovereignty from the Baltics. That is when military force should have been used decisively to put an end to the specter of independence before it was allowed to rise.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2009, 11:41
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 10 Feb 2009, 04:22
Antropov and Chernenko had both been weak, they could not have saved the Union from the break up that occurred in 1991. Likewise the August coup, was doomed to fail, as only Moscow had been at that point been involved, I think the general confusion and the lack of action across the whole of the U.S.S.R, meant little chance for success.

In the end, I think Gorbachev's reforms, had been too much of a shock to the overall system. The U.S.S.R could have taken the lessons of China, and implemented small reforms to see if they could work within their own context.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 10 Feb 2009, 05:33
One thing I've never fully understood is who was the August Coup against, Yeltsin or Gorbachev? Because I saw this documentary on Yeltsin that made Gorbachev look really good. The documentary portrayed Gorbachev as a die hard communist who had power taken away from him by Yeltsin. Also it made it seem as if the Coup was against Yeltsin. However everything else I've heard made it seem as if the Coup was against Gorbachev.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Feb 2009, 07:33
Quote:
The documentary portrayed Gorbachev as a die hard communist

This is Methods.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Feb 2009, 08:34
Quote:
Antropov and Chernenko had both been weak, they could not have saved the Union from the break up that occurred in 1991.


What do you base this on (especially concerning Andropov)?
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 10 Feb 2009, 18:19
Quote:
Antropov and Chernenko had both been weak, they could not have saved the Union from the break up that occurred in 1991.


The breakup could be blamed on Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies and Yeltsin. The dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR wasn't forseen when Andropov and Chernenko were in power.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Feb 2009, 22:46
Quote:
One thing I've never fully understood is who was the August Coup against, Yeltsin or Gorbachev? Because I saw this documentary on Yeltsin that made Gorbachev look really good. The documentary portrayed Gorbachev as a die hard communist who had power taken away from him by Yeltsin. Also it made it seem as if the Coup was against Yeltsin. However everything else I've heard made it seem as if the Coup was against Gorbachev.


The August coup was against Yeltsin by Gorbachev. He wasn't a die-hard communist, he was a die-hard defender of his own ass in power.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9816
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Apr 2008, 03:25
Embalmed
Post 10 Feb 2009, 23:19
I'm confused if it was against Yeltsin by Gorbachev then why did it result in Yeltsin taking all of Gorbachev's power? And yes I know Gorbachev wasn't a die hard communist but the documentary I saw just made Gorbachev look really good compared to Yeltsin.
Once capitalists know we can release the Kraken, they'll back down and obey our demands for sure.
_Comrade Gulper
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Feb 2009, 23:28
Quote:
I'm confused if it was against Yeltsin by Gorbachev then why did it result in Yeltsin taking all of Gorbachev's power?


Because ol' Gorby failed.

Quote:
but the documentary I saw just made Gorbachev look really good compared to Yeltsin.


Like that's all that hard a feat.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2009, 11:41
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 11 Feb 2009, 01:24
Quote:
The breakup could be blamed on Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies and Yeltsin. The dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR wasn't forseen when Andropov and Chernenko were in power.


Lies do not become us.

The fact remains that by the time Khruschev had been ousted, the Soviet CPE (Centrally Planned Economy) had already stagnated the whole economic system of the country. The lack of any real economic plan on the part of Brezhnev to resuscitate the death of the economy, helped further to create the conditions in which the U.S.S.R collapsed. While Perestroika and Glasnost helped to accelerate the collapse and break up of the Union, the conditions had long existed. Antropov and Chernenko had been even less capable than Brezhnev at reinventing the economy.

The failure of Gorbachev, lies, in the fact that he provided social reforms that moved away from the former Soviet ideology. To save the Union, Gorbachev should have taken much less radicalized policies at reforming the stagnant economy and proposing a Soviet reform to a system that had failed.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2009, 06:09
Quote:
Lies do not become us.


No. They don't.

Quote:
Antropov and Chernenko had been even less capable than Brezhnev at reinventing the economy.


You've made this claim twice now and have done nothing to back it up. I think you're forgetting that Andropov was only Gen Sec for a very short time compared to Brezhnev, Chernenko also. They didn't have time to implement any lasting reform to the planned economy. However Andropov especially knew it was necessary. When he approached Brezhnev about the need to do so in the 1970's, he was laughed out of the room.

As I've argued on this forum several times, the answer to the gradual stagnation of the planned economy wasn't to destroy it, but to repair the deficiencies which had developed. I believe implementing technocracy - which advocates a planned economy - could have done this.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2009, 11:41
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 11 Feb 2009, 15:44
While Chernenko and Andropov had been incapable of reforming the economy, due to their short stints in power. The belief lies in the fact that they had been from the Stalinist-Brezhnev school of thought. Although slight economic reforms may have been initiated, the U.S.S.R had to have the whole system revamped, the economy diversified, and the culture of lies, and disputable data that bureaucrats with in the frame work of the CPE had learned since Stalin's reign; needed to end.

Besides, I really don't think that the collapse was unavoidable, especially since movements in Poland especially and Czechoslovakia had been already strong within the 1970s. The Martial law of 1981, proved how fallible and weak the Polish government was, and even at that, the Junta could not truly restore any sort of power or desire to continue on the experiment.

The ultimate failure of the socialist experiment in the U.S.S.R and Eastern Europe, is the failure of the Centrally Planned Economy. Which, was bound to happen, whether or not Chernenko and Andropov had made any massive changes. The global economic situation, the massive overspending on the military, only further hindered any effective economic lifeline that the Soviets could provide to their own system.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 11 Feb 2009, 20:25
The economy didn't need diversification. It was as diverse as could be. It needed optimization of production.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Feb 2009, 23:43
Quote:
The ultimate failure of the socialist experiment in the U.S.S.R and Eastern Europe, is the failure of the Centrally Planned Economy. Which, was bound to happen, whether or not Chernenko and Andropov had made any massive changes.


How do you know?

I couldn't disagree more with your opinion that the CPE was a primary cause of the collapse. You seem to think that economic planning is by nature irreversibly flawed. I think there are enough historical examples of nations using a CPE going through very strong periods of growth to disprove this. To put it in simple terms, the problems that can arise is caused by bad planning and corruption (as you've pointed out, the two are often linked), not planning itself.

As TRL said, the economy was already very diverse, much more so than Russia's or any of the other former republics is today. Indeed, one of the most prosperous of the former republics in terms of living standards is Belarus, the only republic to maintain the old Soviet infrastructure and collective farming (which far from being a failure is feeding the population adequately). The Soviet economy needed optimisation and to have the corrupt bureaucracy Brezhnev (in particular) had allowed to get out of control dealt with. This is another thing Andropov understood very well. Even in the short time he was Gen Sec., he initiated an anti-corruption campaign which for the most part, attracted the support of the population. Some Western journalists at the time commented on this.

Andropov may have been of a Stalinist school of thought - I'm not sure he actually was - but he certainly didn't wish to continue with a Brezhnev style leadership. Just because he didn't wan to abandon the CPE doesn't mean he was incapable of seeing the need to reform it. If anybody in the Soviet Union was deliberately holding back economic reform, it was the bureaucracy. They could see that the implementation of technocratic reforms would deprive them of their status and naturally, they saw thought it in their best interests to hold it back.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 12 Feb 2009, 11:05
The USA is currently a planned economy, just fyi. It's just a more efficient form of planning. Instead of planning every set of goods, all that's controlled is the money market via the federal reserve. The rest of the economy is manipulated through that.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Feb 2009, 14:06
The USA still relies on market economics. There is some intervention into the economy, but it can hardly be called centrally planned over all. What I think you are referring to is at most StaMoCap.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 12 Feb 2009, 21:48
I would disagree. The market in this case is carefully controlled by managing the amount of money available on the capital market.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Feb 2009, 23:38
If market economics isn't the cornerstone of the US system, why is there a recession happening now and why is it getting worse?
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.