(Alt History Discussion)What If The USSR Won Afghan?

[Feyrisshire]

Wrong. The free markets existed right up until the fall, and provide a useful comparative of changing price levels over time vis-à-vis supply and demand when compared to the state sector, in the form of tables which compare the state prices with the legal USSR free market prices.

Again no one said that the USSR was ever in a state where no free markets existed, but their scope varied to the point that it was difficult to measure price distortions vis-a-vis each other. Khruschev and Brezhnev had already largely done away with the private cooperatives and enterprise under Lenin and Stalin. Household plots sold produce at low and fixed costs.

Unless we include in the second economy in the free market, or the cooperatives under Gorbachev which would have included a lot of distortions in the pricing.

Why do neoliberal economists have to come up with the concept of “repressed inflation” from 1950s-1980s, if "open inflation" was somehow prevalent and easy to measure?

Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.

Some Soviet economists are already engaging in debates to introduce feedback mechanisms by the 60s.

How would enterprise managers be able to determine profitability, increase profitability and factor in costing if there was a lack of a price feedback mechanism for commodities?

I didn't say there was lack of pricing, I said there was lack of pricing relative to demand. And yet again there were shortages of goods, in part due to the aforementioned.

Again, this is tenuous, see above.

If you are just going to measure shortages in the USSR by comparing how low they have compared to the United States, then almost all countries would qualify as suffering from shortages in comparison.

[The New California Republic]

Wrong. The free markets existed right up until the fall, and provide a useful comparative of changing price levels over time vis-à-vis supply and demand when compared to the state sector, in the form of tables which compare the state prices with the legal USSR free market prices.

Again no one said that the USSR was ever in a state where no free markets existed, but their scope varied to the point that it was difficult to measure price distortions vis-a-vis each other.

No it isn't difficult at all. The aforementioned Alec Nove easily made the comparisons several times in his books by using the comparative tables, and said explicitly that the prices are reflective of shortages as well as difference in inflation caused by the distortion of price controls which didn't link supply with demand.

Khruschev and Brezhnev had already largely done away with the private cooperatives and enterprise under Lenin and Stalin. Household plots sold produce at low and fixed costs.

Nope. Price controls in the free markets relative to that were the exception and not the rule, and rarely enforced. The prices in the free markets were much higher than the prices in the official stores, rising considerably during the 70s, indicating an unmet demand in state stores.

Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.

Some Soviet economists are already engaging in debates to introduce feedback mechanisms by the 60s.

How would enterprise managers be able to determine profitability, increase profitability and factor in costing if there was a lack of a price feedback mechanism for commodities?

Put simply: they couldn't effectively without adequate feedback mechanisms. Hence why the Soviet economists were proposing introducing them during the 80s, to fix that problem of the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms.

I didn't say there was lack of pricing, I said there was lack of pricing relative to demand. And yet again there were shortages of goods, in part due to the aforementioned.

Again, this is tenuous, see above.

If you are just going to measure shortages in the USSR by comparing how low they have compared to the United States, then almost all countries would qualify as suffering from shortages in comparison.

Strawman. I have not once mentioned the United States.

[Shofercia]

It depends on what time. In Lenin’s NEP, private enterprise was ofc prevalent. During Stalin, private cooperatives and enterprise remained but were progressively being reduced. Khruschev did away with the last remnants of the artel private cooperative. Household plots existed though but sold produce at fixed prices.

At the time of Khruschev-Brezhnev, what remained of the private enterprise in the USSR was so insignificant and a lot relegated to the second economy that the previous methods to measure inflation in Lenin’s NEP and Stalin era, that is through comparing the prices in the private sector vs. the state-owned sector to measure distortions can no longer be done.

Wrong. The free markets existed right up until the fall, and provide a useful comparative of changing price levels over time vis-à-vis supply and demand when compared to the state sector, in the form of tables which compare the state prices with the legal USSR free market prices.

It also remains to be said that pricing was already reintroduced in the Kosygin and Liberman’s reforms. Profit and sales was returned back as part of Soviet planning, so enterprise managers would definitely know costing and profitability of each good.

Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.

1. There was no lack of pricing
2. There was no shortage of goods

I didn't say there was lack of pricing, I said there was lack of pricing relative to demand. And yet again there were shortages of goods, in part due to the aforementioned.

I think what you're missing is the barter system. During the USSR, whether you lived in a city apartment building, a suburb residential neighborhood, or a village, you had access to roughly 50 families, unless your village was very small. Certain families were much better at procuring certain goods than other families, and as a result, barter flourished. The lack of pricing relative to demand that you're talking about existed, but it was akin to buying tickets after the tickets were sold out, rather than buying tickets for a show at regular price - that was the barter system.

I can't think of anything that anyone I knew in my family or extended needed, that we couldn't get after the Great Patriotic War. Same goes for my friends. Sure, we had to barter, we had to find replacements, we had to get creative, but it's not like we were desperately looking for food, or basic medicine. This type of system wasn't documented, but communal dachas provided a healthy supplement of fruits and vegetables, and in some cases extremely fresh milk.

The country wasn't falling apart, nor was it headed to disaster, at least not in the late 1970s, probably not even in the early 1980s. We knew how to survive, and adapted to the system. In some cases, the local cop even allowed underground book reading gatherings to flourish in exchange for curfew enforcement when it was called, but it rarely was. This knowledge of the barter system was passed down from parents to kids. That's why one of the common sayings in the 1990s was that under the USSR "the stores were empty but the refrigerators were full" and that was largely true.

Ah it's good to see you here Shof, your thoughts on this what if scenario are pretty interesting to read.

No need to occupy the entire country, just hold the key areas and slowly force the remaining areas to either become a part of the Northern Alliance, or submit to a variation thereof.

Good point!

Thank you! There are several ways to occupy a country and win a war without having your troops patrol everything. There are certain key points that you have to have your soldiers occupy, like key parts of the capital, military bases, road networks, etc. The next step would be power projection - for instance if your military base is in a key area of the road network and trade, then you can project your occupation onto the roads without actually occupying them, by working with the local militia.

After that you have your allies, who do a good job of occupying their areas on your behalf. That's the third level of occupation, where you can still exert control. The fourth level is your puppets that are there to placate the locals.

[Shofercia]

The massive expenditure on the military, the bureaucracy, and fighting religion was a massive drain. If you removed those issues from the equation, perestroika wouldn't have been necessary.

Well yes, the State bloat in those regards were consistent over more of less the entirety of the USSR's existence.

Not really. In the time period between the Civil War and the end of the Great Patriotic War, the armed forces were as efficient as possible, and wasteful bureaucrats were GULAGed. That's not to say that there weren't any innocent people in the system, in fact quite a few were innocent, but there were also quite a few guilty bureaucrats, and wouldn't you put someone trying to scam people for a COVID-19 treatment, in a GULAG? Just wondering.

The bureaucracy was also quite efficient. In the 1940s, the Red Army and the Red Navy successfully decommissioned 75% of the soldiers and sailors who were serving. And yet, as time went on, the armed forces didn't become leaners with new technology; in some areas, they became more bloated. At least a third of the regular armed forces were not providing the defense needed to satisfy their paycheck, and part of that was because the USSR was already superbly defended. Yes, you're going to have things like planes landing in the Red Square, as other small targets getting through, because no country can defend against that.

In the 1950s, and 1960s the bloated bureaucracy didn't stop a massive construction boom; in the 1970s it didn't stop the improvement of food distribution. It started becoming an issue in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It got worse as time went on, rather than being a consistent stream of waste.

[The New California Republic]

Well yes, the State bloat in those regards were consistent over more of less the entirety of the USSR's existence.

Not really.

I was meaning broadly that there was some bloat in various areas, rather than it being the same constantly over time. It's not an attack on it as such, as some bloat is inevitable in most government systems.

Wrong. The free markets existed right up until the fall, and provide a useful comparative of changing price levels over time vis-à-vis supply and demand when compared to the state sector, in the form of tables which compare the state prices with the legal USSR free market prices.


Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.


I didn't say there was lack of pricing, I said there was lack of pricing relative to demand. And yet again there were shortages of goods, in part due to the aforementioned.

I think what you're missing is the barter system. During the USSR, whether you lived in a city apartment building, a suburb residential neighborhood, or a village, you had access to roughly 50 families, unless your village was very small. Certain families were much better at procuring certain goods than other families, and as a result, barter flourished. The lack of pricing relative to demand that you're talking about existed, but it was akin to buying tickets after the tickets were sold out, rather than buying tickets for a show at regular price - that was the barter system.

I can't think of anything that anyone I knew in my family or extended needed, that we couldn't get after the Great Patriotic War. Same goes for my friends. Sure, we had to barter, we had to find replacements, we had to get creative, but it's not like we were desperately looking for food, or basic medicine. This type of system wasn't documented, but communal dachas provided a healthy supplement of fruits and vegetables, and in some cases extremely fresh milk.

The country wasn't falling apart, nor was it headed to disaster, at least not in the late 1970s, probably not even in the early 1980s. We knew how to survive, and adapted to the system. In some cases, the local cop even allowed underground book reading gatherings to flourish in exchange for curfew enforcement when it was called, but it rarely was. This knowledge of the barter system was passed down from parents to kids. That's why one of the common sayings in the 1990s was that under the USSR "the stores were empty but the refrigerators were full" and that was largely true.

Sure, it's taken as a given that the barter economy existed as well that did make up for some shortfalls, but specifically we were discussing the pricing system in the comparison between the free market/state market; mainly because, as you acknowledged, it was nigh on impossible to integrate such things into stats that we can include in the comparison. But the free market prices do still act as a reflection of demand that is useful for our purposes.

But just to reiterate, since we seem to have deviated from Afghanistan we should probably get back on the BMP and head back towards the mountains. So on that note I'll focus on that aspect instead.

[Sungoldy-China]

What do you mean by win Afghan? like USA win in Afghan again ?

won Afghan meaning USSR did not even start the war , once it start , no way USSR will win .

[The New California Republic]

won Afghan meaning USSR did not even start the war , once it start , no way USSR will win .

That makes no sense. It's impossible to "win" a war if one hasn't even started in the first place.

[Feyrisshire]

No it isn't difficult at all. The aforementioned Alec Nove easily made the comparisons several times in his books by using the comparative tables, and said explicitly that the prices are reflective of shortages as well as difference in inflation caused by the distortion of price controls which didn't link supply with demand.

Nope. Price controls in the free markets relative to that were the exception and not the rule, and rarely enforced. The prices in the free markets were much higher than the prices in the official stores, rising considerably during the 70s, indicating an unmet demand in state stores.

Yes it is, especially when private enterprise in the later stages of the USSR was insignificant.

That’s not also what Alec Nove did, as he didn’t “easily” made the comparisons. In his book “An Economic History of the USSR”, the only way he was able to make the argument was by measuring the prices of food in private farms, without respect to the scope of private agriculture, whether it applied to commodities other than food or to the entirety of the economy as a whole. He also added in savings bank deposits as if the price comparison couldn’t stand on its own.

Other economists also put more emphasis on the “repressed inflation” and on savings bank deposits, meaning a lack of confidence in directly measuring open inflation in the 1960s-early 1980s.

Even if the prices of free market vs. state sector varies, it also ignores the aforementioned fact why precisely would the free market would be immune to distortions and why should it represent the market equilibrium all the time.

Put simply: they couldn't effectively without adequate feedback mechanisms. Hence why the Soviet economists were proposing introducing them during the 80s, to fix that problem of the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms.

Again, it goes far back as the 60s. The Soviet economy already run on profitability, costing and sales post-Kosygin reforms, which would have been impossible to do had there been no price feedback mechanisms of any sort. The Soviet economists are lobbying for greater and more refined price feedback mechanisms does not mean that it wasn’t there.

Strawman. I have not once mentioned the United States.

I am not specifically referring to you but to the fact that the living standards in the USSR are commonly compared to the United States both in media and in literature to prove that there is a “shortage” or “conditions are bad”.

The thing is you haven’t really directly said any metric to measure upon the “shortages” in the USSR.

[The New California Republic]

-Snip-

Unfortunately I can't respond to any of this as it is really getting into threadjack territory at this point, so one of us needs to take the executive decision to stop.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Different from what I am talking about. I'm talking about price feedback mechanisms: they absolutely didn't exist. The fact they didn't exist was shown by the fact that some Soviet economists were in debates in the 80s regarding whether to introduce them, and what form they should take.

Some Soviet economists are already engaging in debates to introduce feedback mechanisms by the 60s.

How would enterprise managers be able to determine profitability, increase profitability and factor in costing if there was a lack of a price feedback mechanism for commodities?

One of the things that you can't imagine is that not all businesses aim to make money.In socialist countries, some state-owned enterprises do not participate in the economic activities of using money. They may exist to provide a service for all, to develop the most secret technology, or to regulate an industry as the hands of the government.For example, the semiconductor industry in the Soviet Union has never been for profit, but has provided computers and semiconductor components for the military industry and scientific research departments of the Soviet Union.Instead of using rubles to calculate a year's benefits, they directly calculate output and report it to the central government.And they can't monetize that, because both the only producers and consumers are part of the government.

[Sundiata]

If Gorbachev were still in power, the Soviet Union would have certainly fallen regardless.

[Aeritai]

If Gorbachev were still in power, the Soviet Union would have certainly fallen regardless.

But what would Afghanistan be like had the Soviets kept it under their control? In your opinion.

[The New California Republic]

But what would Afghanistan be like had the Soviets kept it under their control?

A very rocky road.

[Rusozak]

won Afghan meaning USSR did not even start the war , once it start , no way USSR will win .

That makes no sense. It's impossible to "win" a war if one hasn't even started in the first place.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[Sundiata]

If Gorbachev were still in power, the Soviet Union would have certainly fallen regardless.

But what would Afghanistan be like had the Soviets kept it under their control? In your opinion.

A lot more preferable.

[FNU]

Well winning in this scenario would mean that the Soviet Union is able to defeat the mujahideen and other Afghani resistance groups.
As well as occupying the entire country to make sure the puppet government remains stable.

Who knows? Maybe Gorbachev would have used whatever magical power he used to accomplish this to prevent Chernobyl, put a Soviet on the Moon, conquer Europe, restore good relations with China, and crush the capitalist pig-dogs under the feet of his synthetic diamond sword wielding army of communist mechas.

The United States doesn't seem to be able to completely defeat all Afghan (Afghani is the currency) guerrillas or occupy the WHOLE country or stabilize its favored regime. I can't imagine any way the Soviet Union could have done so either, speculating on what might've happened if they had feels quite silly as a result.

Cheif, you're opening a whole new can of worms by bringing up "put a Soviet on the Moon"

[The New California Republic]

Cheif, you're opening a whole new can of worms by bringing up "put a Soviet on the Moon"

[FNU]

Cheif, you're opening a whole new can of worms by bringing up "put a Soviet on the Moon"

Cries in N-1 engine ignition failure, excluding old reliable engine 18

[Alien Overlord]

I remember reading somewhere that a prime reason why the Soviet Economy was doing to bad in '91 and some years prior to that was mainly due to the fact that so much of the state budget was being poured into the military or given away as aid to neighboring states rather than being invested in essential goods needed in the Soviet Union. I can only imagine that a Soviet victory in Afghanistan would prompt further military funding and thus drive the Soviets to collapse earlier than they did historically.

[Shofercia]

What do you mean by win Afghan? like USA win in Afghan again ?

won Afghan meaning USSR did not even start the war , once it start , no way USSR will win .

It was definitely possible to win if we're speaking strictly from a military perspective. 750,000 Red Army soldiers, backed up by the air force, and forming alliances with the local tribes, would've done it, and that would've been roughly a quarter of the regular forces, excluding the reserves. Afghanistan's population in 1979 was 13.4 million. After assisting the Northern Alliance and establishing local puppets, most of the Red Army could've pulled out within a decade. But a different economic model would've been needed to sustain the level of combat.

[Tokora]

Then after losing a second term Putin negotiates with the Taliban to completely withdraw troops by Christmas.

[The New California Republic]

Then after losing a second term Putin negotiates with the Taliban to completely withdraw troops by Christmas.

If the line of leaders was the same even in this alt history scenario, i.e. Yeltsin followed Gorbachev, then I think Yeltsin would have withdrawn the USSR/Russia from Afghanistan regardless of the victory; so Putin wouldn't have been given a chance to withdraw troops as they would have already been home well before then.

[Shofercia]

Then after losing a second term Putin negotiates with the Taliban to completely withdraw troops by Christmas.

[Aeritai]

Then after losing a second term Putin negotiates with the Taliban to completely withdraw troops by Christmas.

I doubt the Taliban would've come into power... It would be impossible for them to survive a Soviet controlled Afghanistan especially with the KGB looking for any threats that would pose a danger to the puppet government.