• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

How could you ensure a successful USSR?

I wonder if you can break the party without breaking the idea of the union, actually? That'd be interesting.
 
Why do I suspect that in the long run, it would seem that the only way for the Soviet Union to really work is if the Soviet Cybernists were able to takeover in Stalinist fashion and replace the Soviet Economy and Society with just reams of Computers (something they actually tried to do but they were stopped by the flaws of the various ministries).
 
Time Enough said:
Why do I suspect that in the long run, it would seem that the only way for the Soviet Union to really work is if the Soviet Cybernists were able to takeover in Stalinist fashion and replace the Soviet Economy and Society with just reams of Computers (something they actually tried to do but they were stopped by the flaws of the various ministries).
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's not the only reform path, but I also agree any reform path require bringing the overgrown bureaucracy in line and that's likely to be quite brutal.
 
Time Enough said:
Why do I suspect that in the long run, it would seem that the only way for the Soviet Union to really work is if the Soviet Cybernists were able to takeover in Stalinist fashion and replace the Soviet Economy and Society with just reams of Computers (something they actually tried to do but they were stopped by the flaws of the various ministries).
Click to expand...

Do we actually really have any good evidence for that cybernetics really would work?

I mean, it's worth pointing out that though they now have access to information technology far beyond what any visionary in the 60s could have dreamt of, that hasn't exactly helped any of the few remaining command economies deliver any wonders, and from what I can tell, there seems to be an awful lot of cargo cult science in Stafford Beer's designs and theories.

The notion that cybernetics can really in any sense save a command economy strikes me as just a little more sophisticated than the age old idea of "Why don't we just build a giant computer than can calculate scientifically, mathematically, what the best policies are, and then make that into the President of the World?"
 
Makemakean said:
Do we actually really have any good evidence for that cybernetics really would work?

I mean, it's worth pointing out that though they now have access to internet technology, that hasn't exactly helped any of the few remaining command economies deliver any wonders, and from what I can tell, there seems to be an awful lot of cargo cult science in Stafford Beer's designs and theories.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Soviet Union did actually try and use computers to calculate how much people needed, the main problem was that by the time the calculations got down from the computer through the various ministries, down to the shop floor the calculations had already changed leading to either waste or a lack of products.

I don't think it's a get out of jail card and it was flawed but I could see it working better than some of the other options (which is depressing).
 
Makemakean said:
Do we actually really have any good evidence for that cybernetics really would work?

I mean, it's worth pointing out that though they now have access to information technology far beyond what any visionary in the 60s could have dreamt of, that hasn't exactly helped any of the few remaining command economies deliver any wonders, and from what I can tell, there seems to be an awful lot of cargo cult science in Stafford Beer's designs and theories.

The notion that cybernetics can really in any sense save a command economy strikes me as just a little more sophisticated than the age old idea of "Why don't we just build a giant computer than can calculate scientifically, mathematically, what the best policies are, and then make that into the President of the World?"
Click to expand...

The remaining command economies are, what North Korea and Cuba? Both pariah states with very little resources.

Though even with cybernetization, the problem is always the bureaucracy, because it's basically the process of replacing most of it by less corrupt and self serving computers. Which still need some bureaucrats, as well as good instructions and targets.

In a less broken union, it'd be a facilitator for a less dysfunctional bureaucracy subordinate to the population's needs and political goals. In the failing one, I don't think it could solve the fundamental issues of lack of feedback upward and lack of ability to impact change through the bureaucracy.
 
Time Enough said:
With any POD stretching back to 1953 how could you ensure a successful USSR? By successful I mean a country that is able to avoid the economic stagnation and corruption of the Late Soviet Union and doesn’t collapse under it’s own weight by 1991.

I wonder if Khrushchev being able to fulfil his economic liberalisation plans could work, though they would probably have to spend longer sorting them out since they were flawed.
Click to expand...
Have Lavrentiy Beria come to power in the USSR in 1953 and become a Soviet version of Deng Xiaoping?
 
Time Enough said:
Beria has the problem that almost everyone hated him, so he wouldn’t be long for the world.
Click to expand...
He could do mass purges like Stalin did, I suppose. That could keep everyone in line by making them sufficiently scared for their own lives. Or it could simply accelerate his own demise.
 
Sylvanus said:
Well, they didn't for Stalin.
Click to expand...
Stalin had a bit of a personality cult, continuity from his manufactured place as heir to Lenin and a solid grasp on the loyalties of the important people with great people skills when he needed them.


Beria was the executioner and we'll known child rapist who senior figures including Stalin himself took steps to keep their daughters the hell away from.


There is a reason he ended up executed OTL. The man was hated. He lasted just long enough for the transition and for the factions to form. He tries anything himself they just move early and no one is coming to the rescue
 
Death's Companion said:
Stalin had a bit of a personality cult, continuity from his manufactured place as heir to Lenin and a solid grasp on the loyalties of the important people with great people skills when he needed them.


Beria was the executioner and we'll known child rapist who senior figures including Stalin himself took steps to keep their daughters the hell away from.


There is a reason he ended up executed OTL. The man was hated. He lasted just long enough for the transition and for the factions to form. He tries anything himself they just move early and no one is coming to the rescue
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I suppose. (Though FWIW, Lenin did criticize Stalin in his Last Will and Testament--albeit with Stalin not being the only one who was criticized by Lenin in this document of his.)
 
Time Enough said:
With any POD stretching back to 1953 how could you ensure a successful USSR? By successful I mean a country that is able to avoid the economic stagnation and corruption of the Late Soviet Union and doesn’t collapse under it’s own weight by 1991.

I wonder if Khrushchev being able to fulfil his economic liberalisation plans could work, though they would probably have to spend longer sorting them out since they were flawed.
Click to expand...

Grigory Romanov takes over in 1985, decides to enact Price Reform before embarking on the Gorbachev economic reforms. The Party isn't dismantled and Price Reform serves to keep the inflation from breaking out, while the gradual pace of reforms sees the stagnation end by the late 1990s/early 2000s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top