Our Soviet Union (USSR)

[PolishMagnet]

Which is a sad reality, you should vote for people most qualified for the job, not the best looking, or the most buddy-like seaming ones, but that is apparently a notion not many people share as I have learned over the years. Then again reguarding TTL Alexei Rykov had some interesting ideas and plans that would be quit fascinating to see how they might turn out in the Soviet Union, especialy his position on the New Economic Policy (NEP) and his view of the NEPmen (nouveau riches).

Yeah I was joking lmao

Generally I think NEP and some more open politics would be best for the soviets. I'd like to see either Bukharin or Rykov, but I don't think Bukharin was a great speaker.

 

[RedSword12]

I would propose resurrecting Yakov Sverdlov and giving him the honor. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a timeline where he doesn’t just croak from the flu as per OTL.

There's Der Kampf, which makes him a joint-leader with Trotsky and Stalin.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Why do I keep not noticing these threads?

Vote for Lenin's successor here!

Grigory Zinovev is there twice, for some reason.

 

[CountofDooku]

Yeah I was joking lmao

Generally I think NEP and some more open politics would be best for the soviets. I'd like to see either Bukharin or Rykov, but I don't think Bukharin was a great speaker.

I feel the same, there could also be a coalition of the right-wing against Stalin, but then there would be the question who gets what position afterwards. ^^

Why do I keep not noticing these threads?

Grigory Zinovev is there twice, for some reason.

I have the same problem even wit h TL's I watch and not get any notification for...

A copy-paste error on my part most likely, we will simply add his votes together then.

 

[RedSword12]

Personally I'm rooting for Rykov.

 

[CountofDooku]

Personally I'm rooting for Rykov.

Me too ^^

 

[Windows95]

Watched, and want Bukharin's policies, but someone who is... not ruthless, but someone who holds things together, someone who is Tito-like.

 

[CountofDooku]

Watched, and want Bukharin's policies, but someone who is... not ruthless, but someone who holds things together, someone who is Tito-like.

A Tito like figure would be best ^^

 

[Windows95]

Trotsky was also a pro-NEP, but on the left-wing side, where he wants industrialization-first, but under the NEP. Stephen Cohen and Moshe Lewin are good sources talking about this.

 

[CountofDooku]

Trotsky was also a pro-NEP, but on the left-wing side, where he wants industrialization-first, but under the NEP. Stephen Cohen and Moshe Lewin are good sources talking about this.

Good to know, very informative

 

[Sam R.]

It isn't like they ended up in a scissors crisis after the NEP where the Soviet Working class spontaneously started massacring peasants for food. It isn't as if China's rural class system was radically different to Russia's rural class system due to pre-nomenklatura methods of surplus extraction.

 

[CountofDooku]

It isn't like they ended up in a scissors crisis after the NEP where the Soviet Working class spontaneously started massacring peasants for food. It isn't as if China's rural class system was radically different to Russia's rural class system due to pre-nomenklatura methods of surplus extraction.

No, but the economic benefits of a Free Market and people gaining what they worked for more direct as a motivation helped the Chinese transition to State Guided Capitalism OTL and the NEP system had some results as long as Stalin and others had not massacred it because it looked like undermining Communism with Capitalism to them. As the Soviet Union is however the only standing and functioning Communist Nation TTL, it is clear that they can dictate some of the workings and guidlines going further by example and the more said example works, maybe even close to the ideas of Marx and Lenin, then to what Stalin did OTL, I can see them becoming even more popular among other socialist and communist parties.

 

[Sam R.]

had some results as long as Stalin and others had not massacred it because it looked like undermining Communism with Capitalism to them

1) Scissors crises (cris_es_)
2) Ural-siberian method, particularly its spontaneous development
3) Nove-Millar debate

Had Stalin not generalised the Ural-siberian method, the urban working class who had ready access to arsenals and a past history of insurrection, would have moved their spontaneous attacks on the rural population to spontaneous attacks on the party.

The Soviet peasantry refused to accumulate or purchase with the loss of feudal dues because the state had nothing to sell, and there was no purpose to saving. This was very different in China. The Soviet Union does not have a latent rural capital supply. The Soviet Union does not have a US consumer goods trading partner.

You can ride the NEP into 1941 if you like. You just need to tell me, and others here, how the 4th and 5th Petrograd Soviets are crushed by the Red Army; how many more senior Party figures die to keep the NEP in place; how the senior Party maintains control when it is forced to liquidate regional party figures over refusing the Ural Siberian method and 4/5 Petrograd; how the senior Party maintains control when it is forced to liquidate regional party figures over no steel industry and everyone and their cat realising that the Red Army is not up to the task of maintaining nomenklatura / Party rule against european powers. That's actually a very interesting set of cases. Korea shows you what a true "mass" army does when facing modern logistics and elements of mechanised warfare (not good). It makes very interesting allohistory.

Wank the NEP without the urban starvation and social unrest it contains, particularly in 1933, and the points and reading list above will be restated. Pull a heavy industry programme out of a hat without mass rural proletarianisation via MTS/U-S Method and the same. Have healthy party life during a crisis that tears the party and state apart and I'll tell you why Bukharin must die.

I'm all for NEPhappy history. But you take the ride you pay the prices.

 

[panpiotr]

1) Scissors crises (cris_es_)
2) Ural-siberian method, particularly its spontaneous development
3) Nove-Millar debate

Had Stalin not generalised the Ural-siberian method, the urban working class who had ready access to arsenals and a past history of insurrection, would have moved their spontaneous attacks on the rural population to spontaneous attacks on the party.

The Soviet peasantry refused to accumulate or purchase with the loss of feudal dues because the state had nothing to sell, and there was no purpose to saving. This was very different in China. The Soviet Union does not have a latent rural capital supply. The Soviet Union does not have a US consumer goods trading partner.

You can ride the NEP into 1941 if you like. You just need to tell me, and others here, how the 4th and 5th Petrograd Soviets are crushed by the Red Army; how many more senior Party figures die to keep the NEP in place; how the senior Party maintains control when it is forced to liquidate regional party figures over refusing the Ural Siberian method and 4/5 Petrograd; how the senior Party maintains control when it is forced to liquidate regional party figures over no steel industry and everyone and their cat realising that the Red Army is not up to the task of maintaining nomenklatura / Party rule against european powers. That's actually a very interesting set of cases. Korea shows you what a true "mass" army does when facing modern logistics and elements of mechanised warfare (not good). It makes very interesting allohistory.

Wank the NEP without the urban starvation and social unrest it contains, particularly in 1933, and the points and reading list above will be restated. Pull a heavy industry programme out of a hat without mass rural proletarianisation via MTS/U-S Method and the same. Have healthy party life during a crisis that tears the party and state apart and I'll tell you why Bukharin must die.

I'm all for NEPhappy history. But you take the ride you pay the prices.

These are valid points here. NEP is good as a tool to increase agricultural production and stimulate economic growth, but we cannot rely only on it in longer perspective as the USSR has to industrialize and must do it really fast in order to catch up to the West. Many thing can be said about Stalin but his idea of industrialization of the USSR was completely right - the problem was with its execution and loss of millions of lifes.

We as players must achieve the same results as Stalin but without OTL horrors (dekulakization, hlodomor, great purge etc.) - and thats the fun in this game as we must overcome many obstacles on our way.

 

[Crueldwarf]

These are valid points here. NEP is good as a tool to increase agricultural production and stimulate economic growth,

It is actually a bad tool to achieve that and it is exactly what happened OTL. NEP failed to increase agricultural production substantially and its economic growth effect was basically limited to recovery of what damage Civil war did.

@Sam R. is very much correct here. NEP issue was that majority of the Soviet post-CIvil war peasantry got enough land to be subsistence farmers and nothing more, so they had very little ability to actually increase their production, as you need education in better agricultural practices, chemical fertilizers and mechanized labor for that. And subsistence farmer cannot afford anything from that list.

NEP allowed Soviet government to shift away (in a limited way) from the direct natural taxation of the peasantry to semi-regulated grain market on which peasants were selling their surplus to either state or private agents. But devil is, as usual, in the details. The effect of that semi-regulated market was that the grain price was at the lowest during and immediately after harvest season and slowly rose by and during winter season. So most of the sellers were incentivized to sell as late as possible. But to store grain (to sell it later) you need storage facilities which poor peasants were unable to afford.

As the result poorest peasants were forced to sell their harvests first at the lowest prices either to the state agents on the market or to private citizens (mostly other richer peasants who had infrastructure to store the grain or were in position to lease it) and because of that poor peasants had very little incentive to increase production as they were forced to sell cheap and also were unable to accumulate funds to expand their production or to lease/build grain storage to sell later next year.

Because of that NEP achieved basically nothing of what Soviet government wanted. Yeah, a small number of people became richer through being positioned as middle men in the grain trade, but overall economic effect of that was extremely limited and in the long term perspective would lead to slow dispossession of the poorest peasantry and rise of the new landowner class which was obviously unacceptable on ideological grounds. Because of that NEP was terminated.

 

[panpiotr]

It is actually a bad tool to achieve that and it is exactly what happened OTL. NEP failed to increase agricultural production substantially and its economic growth effect was basically limited to recovery of what damage Civil war did.

@Sam R. is very much correct here. NEP issue was that majority of the Soviet post-CIvil war peasantry got enough land to be subsistence farmers and nothing more, so they had very little ability to actually increase their production, as you need education in better agricultural practices, chemical fertilizers and mechanized labor for that. And subsistence farmer cannot afford anything from that list.

NEP allowed Soviet government to shift away (in a limited way) from the direct natural taxation of the peasantry to semi-regulated grain market on which peasants were selling their surplus to either state or private agents. But devil is, as usual, in the details. The effect of that semi-regulated market was that the grain price was at the lowest during and immediately after harvest season and slowly rose by and during winter season. So most of the sellers were incentivized to sell as late as possible. But to store grain (to sell it later) you need storage facilities which poor peasants were unable to afford.

As the result poorest peasants were forced to sell their harvests first at the lowest prices either to the state agents on the market or to private citizens (mostly other richer peasants who had infrastructure to store the grain or were in position to lease it) and because of that poor peasants had very little incentive to increase production as they were forced to sell cheap and also were unable to accumulate funds to expand their production or to lease/build grain storage to sell later next year.

Because of that NEP achieved basically nothing of what Soviet government wanted. Yeah, a small number of people became richer through being positioned as middle men in the grain trade, but overall economic effect of that was extremely limited and in the long term perspective would lead to slow dispossession of the poorest peasantry and rise of the new landowner class which was obviously unacceptable on ideological grounds. Because of that NEP was terminated.

So if not NEP, then how should we proceed in order to rebuild the country after the civil war and at the same time achieve an increase in agricultural production with economic development of the USSR, not even mentioning a wide scale industrialization down the road

 

[Libertad]

Basically.... you cannot just hope that continuing the NEP as it is will result with the Soviet Union doing a Deng China. It doesn't work like that. China of 1978 is very different from the USSR of 1928, essentially.

Reform and opening up in Deng China is partially a bottom-up operation, as to why it was successful. The NEP is completely top-down, to begin with, before it took a life on its own while the expansion of the Ural-Siberian method that led to the Stalinist collectivizations is partially bottom-up. OP and other folks here have to recognize all of that.

The NEP is so popular that no one in the Bolshevik Party wants to get rid away of it, not even Stalin, not even Trotsky. Nonetheless, circumstances still forced its destruction and eventual transformation into the planned economy. Stalin just took it to the extreme.

 

[Crueldwarf]

So if not NEP, then how should we proceed in order to rebuild the country after the civil war and at the same time achieve an increase in agricultural production with economic development of the USSR, not even mentioning a wide scale industrialization down the road

In basic terms: to rebuild the country, urbanize it and promote industrialization you need money. A lot of money. And the thing is that USSR is poor like a church mouse. Even if you wanted to go away from command economy/collectivization, you cannot switch to privatization/free or semi-free market for a very simple reason - there is no one to sell your state assets, nascent industries or arable land to (at least within the country). So you cannot raise funds and privatize economy by selling your existing capital.

It is of course possible (in theory at least) to attract international capital and privatize externally instead of internally but there is simply not a lot of free capital in the world either. Great Depression happened world-wide for a reason, over-poduction was already there throughout the 20s and developed countries domestic markets weren't starved for the investment opportunities and labor was still cheap enough so Soviet Union would not be seen as attractive target for the international investment.

So it basically leaves one solution: to get money you need to sell stuff abroad. That way you can get a cash flow in internationally accepted currencies or gold and you can use this cash flow to back up some loans. That way you will get money to fund industrialization that simultaneously allow you to produce consumer goods to stimulate internal market, improve infrastructure and modernize your agricultural practices.

So the question is what can Soviet Union sell in the 20s and early 30s? And the answer is of course obvious - grain. Oil market barely exist as an international institution and colonial system allows most of the developed countries to fulfill their and their neighbor/partners needs by themselves. And there is no way for antiquated Soviet oil production capabilities to undercut British or American oil production world-wide. So oil is out. The rest is basically luxury/high-value goods like precious metals and furs which is handy but doesn't provide income on the sufficient scale.

Grain it is. And to get more grain to sell you need to modernize your agriculture. Which is a conundrum because it basically means that you need chickens to get more eggs and you need eggs to get more chickens. Stalin solved this conundrum by squeezing the peasantry hard to kickstart this industrialization cycle to the self-sustaining level. What other alternatives are here outside of ASB type stuff like giant mountain of gold appearing on the Red Square I have no idea.

 

[Libertad]

, you cannot switch to privatization/free or semi-free market for a very simple reason - there is no one to sell your state assets, nascent industries or arable land to (at least within the country). So you cannot raise funds and privatize economy by selling your existing capital.

It is possible to privatize internally if you do it the 500 Days shock therapy way, but neoliberal theory at this time doesn't yet exist, and there are no people that will advise the same thing, even if it meant disastrous consequences for the USSR and as you can see, classical liberal economics by this time is heavily discredited by the Great Depression. It's possible to semi-privatize parts of state industry and to create a version of TVEs of the 1980s in China but the thing is at the end of the day, these are not solutions to the scissors crisis.

Interestingly, the Stalinist industrialization program did attract a ton of international investment via foreign capitalists making deals with the Soviet government like it is a capitalist corporation in itself running a gigantic company town. The governmental expropriation of the peasantry did cheapen Soviet labor costs to the point that foreign companies can start exploiting Soviet labor albeit indirectly via the Soviet state.

Realistically, Bukharin is the only person that can really outmaneuver Stalin in the power struggles of the 1920s and that will take a POD going back.

 

[Crueldwarf]

It is possible to privatize internally if you do it the 500 Days shock therapy way,

Not really. Soviet Union in 1991 was by the orders of magnitude richer than Soviet Union in the 1920s. So Russian government of the 90s had already existing capitalist class (which was formed in the 80s) which was able to buy property off the state hands. And of course international financing existed too. Nothing like that was available in the 20s.

Of course it was possible to give out assets for free to privatize the economy, but privatization is not the goal here, it is a way to raise the funds for the state to invest somewhere else. So privatization 90s style is both impossible and also useless.

Interestingly, the Stalinist industrialization program did attract a ton of international investment via foreign capitalists making deals with the Soviet government like it is a capitalist corporation in itself running a gigantic company town.

Well, it was not really investment. It was Soviet government buying expertise, industrial capacity and know-hows with the money it got from the grain trade. Ford didn't build automotive plants in the USSR for the future profit. Ford was hired to do stuff for a fixed price.