Soviet Union's Possible Success

[Inverse Icarus]

Question for the communists / anti-communists of apolyton.

Do you think that the Soviet Union could have succeeded if the rest of the world didn't offer them a cold shoulder?

I am well versed in the philosophies of Marxism and Communism (world wide revolution!!!), and I live in America so i have a decent grip on the whole Capitialism / Anti-Communism feelings. I took a few courses in European History, American Histroy, American Government, and Economics.

So my question to you, is if America, Britian, and all the other Democratic / Capitialistic nations didn't almost automatically hate the Soviet Union, what could have happened?

If it helps, think of it in Civ3 terms. In real life, the USSR civ would be surrounded by powerful, rich, tech savy civs that were "annoyed", or even "furious". the chances of trading and bettering both nations goes down the tubes.

imagine playing a game of civ in which no AI wanted to talk / trade / anything with you, and you couldn't outright declare war and destroy them.

[Tuberski]

Contrary to the Civ games, the corruption in the Soviet Union brought about it's downfall.

[Serb]

imagine playing a game of civ in which no AI wanted to talk / trade / anything with you, and you couldn't outright declare war and destroy them.

WTF?
Do you trying to say that no one ever didn't declared war on SU in real life?
What about intervention of 14 foreign countries against Soviet Russia just after October Revolution? What about Hitler?

What consider trade, it was not a question of survival for Soviets. In civ terms SU had EVERY possible resourses in very big qantity.

So my question to you, is if America, Britian, and all the other Democratic / Capitialistic nations didn't almost automatically hate the Soviet Union, what could have happened?

In that case SU didn't spend half of it's GND for military purposes and it should have absolutely different economy.
I sugest in this case I still lived in country called Soviet Union instead of Russian Federation.

[Giancarlo]

The Soviet Union's economy was in massive disarray and was a disorganized disaster, or basket-case. Its industries was pathetically outdated and inadequate. It was doomed to die.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it wouldn't have survived.

The economic system was simply messed. No incentive... cheating going on all over, just total mess.

I mean, the productivity was NEGATIVE in the 80s... that is simply jawdropping.

[MrFun]

Re: Soviet Union's Possible Success

Originally posted by UberKruX
Question for the communists / anti-communists of apolyton.

Do you think that the Soviet Union could have succeeded if the rest of the world didn't offer them a cold shoulder?

I am not a believer of communism, but I'm not anti-communist either, since I do not hate those who do believe in communism.

Anyway, communism in the Soviet Union could not have succeeded even in a more peaceful world, simply because there were always wealthier people in the Soviet Union. There was too much corruption, and too much concentrated wealth with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

[chequita guevara]

You are positing that if everything else was diferent, the economy still would have been a basketcase in the 80s, Imran? Balderdash!

The economy of the USSR was exceedingly energetic in the begining, after the civil war, and only crunched because of seven years of the most brutal war. Even under the Stalinist terror, there were incredible levels of volunteerism and sacrifice for the betterment of their nation.

I suggest that if the USSR hadn't been attacked outright, economically cut off, and had the CIA running around fomenting saboteurs, the USSR might have really been something spectacular.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The economy of the USSR was exceedingly energetic in the begining, after the civil war, and only crunched because of seven years of the most brutal war. Even under the Stalinist terror, there were incredible levels of volunteerism and sacrifice for the betterment of their nation.

Yes. Because they were forced to. If they didn't they would of been marched off to Gulags, left to die in brutal cold.

I suggest that if the USSR hadn't been attacked outright, economically cut off, and had the CIA running around fomenting saboteurs, the USSR might have really been something spectacular.

Yeah right! Their industries were so backwards it wasn't even funny.

[Jon Miller]

I don't neccesarily think that SU would have been spectacular

but it definitly would have been moderately succesful (maybe more so than the US)

but then I am not really a Marxist

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

BS!

The economy of the Soviet Union was crap after Stalin. Basically Stalin forced industrialization, resulting in extremely high growth rates.

However, the whole structure of the economy was rotten. There was no real incentive. You had managers who'd mistate production because the only incentive was bonuses made by beating targets. You had a whole system where nothing was done by market forces... so you had only one sort of, say, aluminum being produced in a plant, so a car factory would get tons of sheet aluminum when it didn't need that kind.

The entire economic system was rotten to the core... especially since the Stalinists believed that the people didn't need consumer goods.

Oh, and btw, Stalin was looking towards creating autarky in his country, so trade wouldn't have mattered anyway... but even if the SU wanted to trade... having a non-convertable currency would make the level of trade not much higher than it already was.

[el freako]

Stalinism gave a huge boost to the productive potential of the USSR (in 1913 Russia had around 40% of Germany's manufacturing output, by 1938 Germany had 40% of the Soviet Union's) but at the cost of setting up corruptionist tendencies that in the end crippled the USSR's ability to grow past a certain point.

Stalin's purges, whilst awful from a humanitarian viewpoint, did at least have the economic benefit of inhibiting the growth of corruptionist coalitions within the economy.

If the USSR was allowed to 'live in peace' then I think it could still be in existance today (although it's power would be well below the mid 1970's peak).

If the 'kinder, gentler' form of communism that came with Kruschev had not prevailed and brutal Stalinism with it's periodic purges had prevailed then I think it's quite possible that the Soviet Union could today be equal to the USA in global power.

With reflection that's quite a horrifying thought.

[steelehc]

The Soviet Union totally destroyed its own land. Two thirds of the Aral Sea is now desert. Lake Baikal, the most voluminous fresh water lake in the world is full of pollutants. More then 4 million acres of the Ukranian "black earth" soil, the most fertile soil on the planet were ruined in only a few weeks by huge overloads of fertilization and irrigation. In Magnitogorsk, there was so much soot and ash in the air from open-air steel smelters, (the kind which were last used in America in 1878) that every day, more then .5 inches (1.3cm) of dust would collect on every surface in some homes. In the oil-rich Caucasus region, for every twenty barrels of oil that flowed through the piplines, one barrel spilled out onto the ground. Three quarter-million acres of Siberian forest were logged in one summer, and the wood was left lying around through the winter; by the time it was collected, it had almost completely rotted. There are many other examples of this.

In my opinion, if the Soviet Union had been more open to the west, the west would have returned the favor. If this had been the case, I think we would all be better off, as the land in the former USSR would not be so horrendously polluted.

But improvements are being made, albeit slowly.

Steele

[chequita guevara]

Yes, but all of the examples of what went wrong int he USSR are contingent upon a history which started out with civil war and foreign invasion and economic blackade. Without understanding how the first three events deformed the Soviet polity, you can't make a reasonable guess about how things might have been different.

[steelehc]

You can argue about what would happen, but my point was:

If the USSR were more open with the west would have been likewsie. This would have enabled the sharing of technology both ways. I can't think of anything that the west would gain that it wouldn't already have, but the USSR could get cleaner and more efficient manufacturing practices, more efficient engines, and the like.

Steele

[Imran Siddiqui]

Without understanding how the first three events deformed the Soviet polity, you can't make a reasonable guess about how things might have been different.

So how can you say it would have been spectacular?