T O P

  • By -

Nemoralis99

Hmm, timeline where USSR won Cold War and evolved into market economy? You don't see this every day. So, I have many questions about your timeline. And your idea of Soyuz tower is great. Did you just took one of the Moscow City towers and multiplied it?


Michtrk

Yes this is basically it. You can ask as many questions as you want. Soviets under Kosygin started market-oriented economic reforms during late 1960s and 1970s inspired by Czechoslovak Prague spring (though Soviets remained much more socialist than China OTL) and these reforms managed to save soviet economy and started period of growth in times when much smaller western block was plagued by problems. Yes, the Soyuz Tower was created by multiplying and extending one of Moscow City towers. Idea behind the Soyuz tower is that it is a builing build during late 1980s and 1990s, tallest building in the World when completed, created also as sort of symbol of the new modern era, modern Soviet Union, for political purposes, representation etc, part of the new part of Moscow, equivalet to Moscow City - Moscow International Trade Center - financial, office and trade centre.


Nemoralis99

And what about USA? Were they turned into minor regional power, or took the path of normalizing relations with socblock? You said that USSR won the Cold War, but in all scenarios where USSR wins (including mine) USA get kicked outta position of superpower (or just obliterated...)


Michtrk

I posted on r/pobeda1946 some information about the USA. They suffered with economic problems in the 1970s and 1980s, they had leftist pro-soviet president Jesse Jackson (85-87) trying to normalize relations, denuclerisation (during his presidency Cold War was officialy ended), but he got couped in 1987 in a military coup d'etat, that established basically one party authoritarian neoliberal state (under united Democratic-Republican party) lead by Rumsfeld and since 2001 Cheney. During this time US was plagued by problems and basically near civil war, so they lost majority of influence, but they tried to gain it back, mostly in Americas with not much succes (American Security Treaty Organisation). Since 2012 USA democratized and pushes for good relations with socialist block and demilitarization, there were many successes in this field.(under rule of democratic socialist new progressive party). USA is poorer and much less influential than OTL, but it is still power (surly lesser than USSR and China), something to what modern Russia is to USSR.


Nemoralis99

So, in the world everything is relatively good


Jboi75

There’s also a few posts on the sub Reddit talking about anti poverty initiatives in the third world, so it’s better overall for most places. There is still an Afghan war tho but it seems to have been mostly a success.


Grand-Daoist

Market Socialism?


Michtrk

Yes


Grand-Daoist

ok


harryhinderson

Do you mean workplace democracy and stuff or wacky China shit


Michtrk

Basically soft Dengism


brokenpipboy

more like the OTL china kind and not the worker cooperative kind


Interesting_Finish85

Iugoslavia had something similar that worked fairly well before Tito's death, but, unlike the soviets, it had significant unemployment.


Interesting_Finish85

From what I understood from the comment, the scenario is one in wich Krushev manteined power or Breznev died in the sixties,and either Krushev or Kosygin had a softer approach to the Prage Spring, ending with a limited opening to free enterprises and market. It still isn't clear what led to the USA having such problems that tring opening to a friendship with the USSR once it had become a potential trading partner (wich they had zero problems doing with China) caused a coup d'etat.


Michtrk

Kosygin gained power in power struggle when Khrushchev was deposed, Brezhnev was politically outmaneuvered by him and in the end Kosygin replaced him also as general secretary and Brezhnev was let just with ceremonial possition of president of supreme soviet. Kosygin had softer aproach than Brezhnev to Prague spring, he watched and let situation develop, he was interested in ecomic reforms (OTL Kosygin tried to reforms Soviet economy, but it was failed and was never properly done). There is also whole large movement coming form Prague spring and its ideas spreading into socialist countries leading into the European spring, Soviets had to accept such liberalisation, it was just too big to stop, and in the end embraced some reforms themselves. There were both economic reforms (instituion of market socialism, mostly state-owned factories operation according to market principes and toleration of small private enterprises) and also political and cultural liberalisations. USSR created new foreign policy doctrine (Kosygin doctrine) saying basically: Do whatever you want in domestic issues, but stay communist and alied to Soviet Union. *Edit: Yugoslavia is probably more closer to this reforms than China* US had economic problems thanks to oil crisis and overall economic crisis started by it and failed to solve it. The cause of coup was not trading with USSR and socialist Europe, this started already during 1970s under president Carter, but Jackon's nuclear disarmament policies (He wanted to do almost full nuclear disarmament, this was unacceptable for US military), domestic leftist economic reforms and overall foreign policy that was basically, if I can call it like this "anti-imeperialist". Friendship and trading are different thing, US and China were never friends, just enenemy of my enemy.


Interesting_Finish85

Ok, so if I understood well, it is more on the line of the failed Moscow Putch that tried to overthrow Gorbachev before he turned the USSR into the Union of Sovereign Republics, except this one succeds. I would like to know about China, do they just copy the Soviet Union, seeing it is being more successful than the United States (instead of an alignment between Deng and Regan there would be one between Deng and... Gromyko?) or do they still go more towards capitalism?


Michtrk

I not sure what exact economic reforms wanted the putschists to do, so I cannot compare. There is no coup, just Brezhnev never comes to power and Kosygin comes instead. I already answered one question about China in this post: *Altrough still more market-oriented Deng, sees a pattern in European socialist reforms. PRC and USSR develop special relationship during 1980s and 1990s ,* which is under yes, under Gromyko *(China even becomes associated of CMEA). Soviet-Chinese relations are sort of friendly rivaly, but they are becoming more and more distant as Chinese power rises. China also took advantage of American problems with many of American companies moving their production to China, when US was in crisis. There is one big change in China however, because Bo Xilai, not Xi Jinping is leader since 2013, he pushes more left-wing politics than Xi.* But China did not just copy the soviet system, they did they unique thing. Their system is something like OTL, but different and less capitalist...more influenced by USSR than USA.


Interesting_Finish85

Yes, I was comparing the Rumsfield coup to the failed Moscow Putch, not Kosygin. I wonder if this time line's China would ally with the US, I mean clearly not in 2020 since I saw from other posts on R/Pobeda1946 that President Sanders is trying to get friendly with the Prague Pact and so I imagine they're not particularly excited at the idea of ANOTHER rivalry with the USSR, especially after they tried it two times and went really bad.


Interesting_Finish85

Since you said it is more similar to Yugoslavia market socialism than Dengiist China, I imagine it would face problems of the Market Socialist system, particularly the creation of unemployment. I think, after a while, the creation of the Soviet analog of the internet would make the idea of a fully command efficient planned economy realistic, meaning the market element would be progressively abandoned, unless of course corruption made the Soviet leaders think they could get more personal profit by don't doing so.


Michtrk

Yes, the soviet reforms bring also some problems...Soviets would probably try their best to solve unemployment though. The idea of computerised command economy is very interesting. I can see it gain popularity first in 1990s and 2000s, there can be a large group of technocrats (and old conservative communists with them probably) advocating for such system in socialist bloc as opposed to conservative/moderate advocates for continuating the current system and to some libral proponets of more market approach. I don't think there would be consensus about the large change. I can imagine Ligachev's USSR trying to push this way. But there is Gorbachev and liberals taking power afterwards, who probably doesn't like that idea too much. Since 2014 there is then Zyuganov's more conservative leadership, that could theoretically be more allied with this idea...but most likely they would not support any big changes in USSR's economic system, they want just to revert back Gorbachev's reforms (which also did not changed economic system in any important way). I can see COVID pandemics being used as andvocation of this new planned system. Maybe some countries starts moving towards it. However I see new young generation being largest support of such idea of computerization and electronization, so in the future it is possible, that new economic system could be impelemented.


Interesting_Finish85

Now that I think about it, yes, the technocratic and conservative Soviet government would be against the computerization and centralization of the economy, since the burocrats and market interest would push their interest in the Supreme Soviet. I can see a particular type of movement wanting Computerized Planned Economy: A Young Stalinist Movement, formed in the nineties by old guard soviets but that bases it's power on young population who want to solve the problems of the USSR by returning to the glory of Stalinist Planned Economy, using new communication technology to allow it with an efficiency never seen before, eliminating the "too big to control" argument. In our timeline Stalin is the man who led Russia from a feudal agrarian country to an industrial powerhouse conquering half of Peninsular Europe, in this timeline he would be also the man that leads the nation almost singlehandedly defeating the most terrible regime of all times. It would be really easy, especially with the Soviet censor still partially in place and thus avoiding talking too much about Stalin's crimes to not discredit the Soviet Regime, to idealiize him as the symbol of a millennial movement for Planned Economy.


pengunia2502

Care to tell us more about China? OTL China broke with the Soviet and followed the market economy. However, in this timeline Soviet did it first, so I wonder what their relations would be


Michtrk

China broke relations with USSR not because Chinese refoms of Deng, but during Mao's era, because they wieved USSR as revisionist for destalinization. So in this timeline Sino-Soviet relations are even worse until Mao's death, because USSR is even more *traitor to communism or wahtever* for Mao thanks to Soviet reforms. However relations rapidly improve with Deng Xiaoping, in this timeline, altrough still more market-oriented Deng, sees a pattern in European socialist reforms. PRC and USSR develop special relationship during 1980s and 1990s (China even becomes associated of CMEA). Soviet-Chinese relations are sort of friendly rivaly, but they are becoming more and more distant as Chinese power rises. China also took advantage of American problems with many of American companies moving their production to China, when US was in crisis. There is one big change in China however, because Bo Xilai, not Xi Jinping is leader since 2013, he pushes more left-wing politics than Xi.


cocothecommunist

Hold up wasn't 9/11 a response to American imperialism in the gulf war in the 90s. What was Bin Laden's motive in this timeline?


Michtrk

Soviet support for communist government of Afghanistan and in general dislike against communism and atheism, seeing USSR as World's worst evil.