How could Gorbachev's reforms meant to save the USSR have been successful?

[Reflection]

Mikhail Gorbachev had ideas that seemed great at the time, but overall are said to have help cause the Soviet Union to collapse. With the power of hindsight, what are things that Gorbachev could've done differently, that might have been able to actually save the USSR the way he intended.

Gorbachev's two main reforms were Glasnost and Perestroika, the former allowing for more free speech, the ability to criticize the government, and greater freedom to the press, and the latter liberalizing the economy with decentralization of state-run industries and allowing for some private industry among the citizens as well. He allowed for foreign media to be aired in the USSR, allowed for much greater freedom to travel abroad to the west, and also did a major crackdown on alcohol consumption (which was a terrible idea, and the US already proved it long beforehand).

While it had positive effects at the start, ultimately it came when the population itself was very dissatisfied with their way of life, and used the free speech to openly criticize the government in ways that the politburo couldn't stand up to, combined with the freer press and the ability to travel abroad exposing them to how much better life was outside of communism. The limited capitalist measures brought on by Perestroika were great, but also left people wanting more. It was a perfect storm that led to the USSR's collapse at the end of 1991.

But... I think if things were done a little differently, the USSR could've survived. For one, I've seen this suggested before: Don't do Glasnost and Perestroika at the same time. Do Perestroika first, and after some time has passed and spirits are lifted, gradually introduce Glasnost reforms. In other words, slowly and not all at once. I'd also NOT do that ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign as all it did was make people mad and hurt industries that were otherwise thriving. Also, the USSR would still need to remain authoritarian above it all, similar to China in this regard, so they would need to retain a strong central government even while liberalizing.

Of course, it's easy to say stuff like that now, with the benefit of hindsight and not being in that situation, but I think it's worth discussing. What else should've been done differently during this time?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Mikhail Gorbachev had ideas that seemed great at the time, but overall are said to have help cause the Soviet Union to collapse. With the power of hindsight, what are things that Gorbachev could've done differently, that might have been able to actually save the USSR the way he intended.

Gorbachev's two main reforms were Glasnost and Perestroika, the former allowing for more free speech, the ability to criticize the government, and greater freedom to the press, and the latter liberalizing the economy with decentralization of state-run industries and allowing for some private industry among the citizens as well. He allowed for foreign media to be aired in the USSR, allowed for much greater freedom to travel abroad to the west, and also did a major crackdown on alcohol consumption (which was a terrible idea, and the US already proved it long beforehand).

While it had positive effects at the start, ultimately it came when the population itself was very dissatisfied with their way of life, and used the free speech to openly criticize the government in ways that the politburo couldn't stand up to, combined with the freer press and the ability to travel abroad exposing them to how much better life was outside of communism. The limited capitalist measures brought on by Perestroika were great, but also left people wanting more. It was a perfect storm that led to the USSR's collapse at the end of 1991.

But... I think if things were done a little differently, the USSR could've survived. For one, I've seen this suggested before: Don't do Glasnost and Perestroika at the same time. Do Perestroika first, and after some time has passed and spirits are lifted, gradually introduce Glasnost reforms. In other words, slowly and not all at once. I'd also NOT do that ill-fated anti-alcohol campaign as all it did was make people mad and hurt industries that were otherwise thriving. Also, the USSR would still need to remain authoritarian above it all, similar to China in this regard, so they would need to retain a strong central government even while liberalizing.

Of course, it's easy to say stuff like that now, with the benefit of hindsight and not being in that situation, but I think it's worth discussing. What else should've been done differently during this time?

Don't put Ryzhkov as the head of the economy and put someone more competent, you should either use a shock therapy or make reforms much more slowly there shouldn't be any compromises.
I agree on "Glasnost shouldn't be done at the same time as Perestroika" and "No Alcohol Campaign" but he should also say immediately the consequences of Chernobyl as that also hurt his popularity. However ending the Cold War would help as you can get a lot of loans and help from the West that way.
Edit: Also start doing these reforms before the Oil Glut because starting to make reforms when you are running out of money is a terrible idea

 

[Space Dreamer]

About Chernobyl I think that he could also not openly critisise the party. It lead to a lot of trouble (especialy with Yelsin).
Another Perestroika is also to be considered. Imo a full transition to capitalism is not the right thing to do. Maybe something like Goulash’s communism. But change must also take place within the party itself, with debureaucratisation and the fight against corruption.

 

[McAuslan_in_the_Rough]

Gorbachev's ideas were pretty ridiculous - he wanted to return to "true Leninism" except that he had an idealized view of Lenin that had nothing to do with reality. Gorbachev somehow thought that because Lenin was good in a crisis, creating crises would be good for the USSR. He had also convinced himself that the Communist party would try to stop his reforms and made a consistent effort to destroy the party's power. In doing so, he had removed his most effective tool for reform - once the party's power was diminished, he quickly lost all control over the processes he had unleashed. The great irony being that the party functionaries would have happily followed orders to enact whatever reforms Gorbachev wanted, since they meekly let him destroy their power. All that to say that I don't think Gorbachev could have accomplished any effective reforms. Someone else, very possibly, but not Gorbachev.

 

[Space Dreamer]

Do you know any realistic rival(s) to Gorbachev ?

 

[SodaMan1996]

The problem was that the USSR's economy was such a mess during the 1970s and especially the '80s, that by the time Gorbachev rose to power, the Soviet economy was already starting to collapse.

The reforms came too late.

 

[Space Dreamer]

The problem was that the USSR's economy was such a mess during the 1970s and especially the '80s

Well... let's say that the Afgan war and Reagan didn't help. We could save a year if we avoid Tchernenko to become the leader of the USSR. maybe if Andropov live a little bit longer and if he chose Gorbatchev for leading the economy. This could give a real chance to Gorbatchev's economic reforms.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

About Chernobyl I think that he could also not openly critisise the party. It lead to a lot of trouble (especialy with Yelsin).
Another Perestroika is also to be considered. Imo a full transition to capitalism is not the right thing to do. Maybe something like Goulash’s communism. But change must also take place within the party itself, with debureaucratisation and the fight against corruption.

Before becoming the leader of " 'Democratic' Russia " Yeltsin was a party outcast, he was completely irrelevant at the time.

The problem was that the USSR's economy was such a mess during the 1970s and especially the '80s, that by the time Gorbachev rose to power, the Soviet economy was already starting to collapse.

The reforms came too late.

The economy wasn't doing great but Gorbachev's misleaded reforms were the reason why it collapsed

 

[Kaiser of Brazil]

Simple, Gorbachev should not liberalized politics. In the one moment he needed power the most, when the Soviet Union would get destabilized, he purposefully dismantled his power and, with it, any authority he could have to keep the Union together during a critical economic position.

 

[Space Dreamer]

Avant de devenir le leader de la Russie démocratique, Eltsine était un paria du parti, il n’était pas du tout pertinent à l’époque.

This is because after Gorbachev criticized the government, he did the same thing in worse and Gorbachev did not support it. So he sought revenge.

The economy wasn't doing great but Gorbachev's misleaded reforms were the reason why it collapsed

In fact I think it was mostly Glasnost that made it collapse, but the introduction to capitalism also creates many shortages which anger the peoples.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

In fact I think it was mostly Glasnost that made it collapse, but the introduction to capitalism also creates many shortages which anger the peoples.

If the economy wasn't doing terrible people wouldn't have turned to nationalism, the economic crisis proved once again that the government was terrible; without Glasnost this certainly wouldn't have happened but the economic crisis was an absolutely necessary element for the USSR to collapse

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Simple, Gorbachev should not liberalized politics. In the one moment he needed power the most, when the Soviet Union would get destabilized, he purposefully dismantled his power and, with it, any authority he could have to keep the Union together during a critical economic position.

He was an idealist, he failed repeatedly to use his executive powers to regain his power and prevent trouble-makers such as Yeltsin to go around freely. He simply was the worst possible person for the job.

 

[LeX]

Assuming Gorbachev and his administration wanted to preserve the USSR:

They should have done phased-in, bottom-up economic reforms to nature a business class that didn't consist purely of criminals. A few years into this, they could have done some limited privatization of state enterprises, especially in the consumer industry. This is especially important because consumer goods were the thing in massive shortage in the Soviet Union, and what people thought of most when they dreamed of life in the capitalist countries.

A real issue is that the CPSU were scaredycats who seriously thought that blue jeans would destroy Soviet society or that World War III would be fought as a repeat of World War II, with NATO using the playbook of the Nazis. If the reformers cannot overcome these fears, they probably cannot succeed.

The military should have been cut down massively to focus on an elite, professional force, with conscription significantly reduced to free up millions of young men for labor.

Let go of all the satellite states except for East Germany and possibly Bulgaria. They are simply not worth it. East Germany is significant because they have a "model" socialist regime that can be indefinitely propped up with Soviet resources, are an important spiritual-psychological symbol of the victory in WWII, and will confound attempts by NATO to move east and give everyone the impression that the Soviets "lost" the Cold War. The Berlin Wall will not fall as long as the Soviet forces in Germany are still there.

This brings up another issue which is relations with the West. For various developmental reasons it's simply not possible or desirable for the USSR to try to do what the PRC did under Deng Xiaoping. Simply introducing low-level market reforms to keep the system lubricated and cutting down the military industry would not give the Soviets the means to compete in Western markets; there is no way that Soviet products are going to be good enough to sell on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Also and perhaps more importantly, as OTL showed, it's hard if not impossible to get NATO to truly see Russia as a friendly state, so it's in the USSR's interests to keep the Cold War going in name if not in form. Over time the West will figure out what's going on and Western enterprises will warm up to doing business in the Soviet Union, allowing them to invite foreign investment and technology, though again this would be on a far smaller scale compared with what China got IOTL.

Over time, the Soviets will probably develop some industries that can compete globally in niche markets or in certain parts of the industrial supply chain. If they are lucky they may even break into the tech market, though such efforts would be hampered from the get-go with concerns that Soviet products would be infected with KGB spyware. I can see them doing good business with China and other non-Western countries, and indirectly benefit from those places' economic rise in the 1990s onward.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Assuming Gorbachev and his administration wanted to preserve the USSR:

They should have done phased-in, bottom-up economic reforms to nature a business class that didn't consist purely of criminals. A few years into this, they could have done some limited privatization of state enterprises, especially in the consumer industry. This is especially important because consumer goods were the thing in massive shortage in the Soviet Union, and what people thought of most when they dreamed of life in the capitalist countries.

A real issue is that the CPSU were scaredycats who seriously thought that blue jeans would destroy Soviet society or that World War III would be fought as a repeat of World War II, with NATO using the playbook of the Nazis. If the reformers cannot overcome these fears, they probably cannot succeed.

The military should have been cut down massively to focus on an elite, professional force, with conscription significantly reduced to free up millions of young men for labor.

Let go of all the satellite states except for East Germany and possibly Bulgaria. They are simply not worth it. East Germany is significant because they have a "model" socialist regime that can be indefinitely propped up with Soviet resources, are an important spiritual-psychological symbol of the victory in WWII, and will confound attempts by NATO to move east and give everyone the impression that the Soviets "lost" the Cold War. The Berlin Wall will not fall as long as the Soviet forces in Germany are still there.

This brings up another issue which is relations with the West. For various developmental reasons it's simply not possible or desirable for the USSR to try to do what the PRC did under Deng Xiaoping. Simply introducing low-level market reforms to keep the system lubricated and cutting down the military industry would not give the Soviets the means to compete in Western markets; there is no way that Soviet products are going to be good enough to sell on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Also and perhaps more importantly, as OTL showed, it's hard if not impossible to get NATO to truly see Russia as a friendly state, so it's in the USSR's interests to keep the Cold War going in name if not in form. Over time the West will figure out what's going on and Western enterprises will warm up to doing business in the Soviet Union, allowing them to invite foreign investment and technology, though again this would be on a far smaller scale compared with what China got IOTL.

Over time, the Soviets will probably develop some industries that can compete globally in niche markets or in certain parts of the industrial supply chain. If they are lucky they may even break into the tech market, though such efforts would be hampered from the get-go with concerns that Soviet products would be infected with KGB spyware. I can see them doing good business with China and other non-Western countries, and indirectly benefit from those places' economic rise in the 1990s onward.

The hard-liners of the Communist party reacted to Gorbachev's reforms (which had already completely destroyed the system) only at the very end; if the system works obedience towards the ruler of the party will prevail.
You can't make the West friendly with the USSR if the Cold War is still going on, it's probably not possible even decades after the end of the Cold War; the best way to do reforms (though it isn't essential to do so) is to end the Cold War to get loans and some technology from the West to help your reforms.

 

[Space Dreamer]

The military should have been cut down massively to focus on an elite, professional force, with conscription significantly reduced to free up millions of young men for labor.

It will be necessary to put this new resources on the civil sector and more particularly on agriculture (perhaps with automation). In Otl they have a serious lack of civilian industry. If you get the men but not industry you won't go anywere.

 

[LeX]

The hard-liners of the Communist party reacted to Gorbachev's reforms (which had already completely destroyed the system) only at the very end; if the system works obedience towards the ruler of the party will prevail.
You can't make the West friendly with the USSR if the Cold War is still going on, it's probably not possible even decades after the end of the Cold War; the best way to do reforms (though it isn't essential to do so) is to end the Cold War to get loans and some technology from the West to help your reforms.

They don't need to be friendly with the West for there to be a limited amount of trade. There was even trade during the OTL Cold War. A lot of the Soviets' missiles used electronics bought from the West via various channels. Without them the Soviet nuclear deterrent would not have worked.

Keeping the Cold War going, at least notionally, is useful insofar as it gives the Soviet ideology an enemy to direct public attention towards.

If the reforms went right, Soviet citizens will be able to buy blue jeans, whether they're made in America or China. Food supply will be more privatized so people won't have to spend hours waiting in line to buy 100 jars of jam to take home and trade for other daily essentials. With low-level consumer enterprises developing, there will also be a lot of Soviet knockoffs of Western clothes, apparel, etc, mainly for internal consumption.

This USSR wont experience extremely rapid growth like the PRC. It's not going to take in tons of foreign money. It will simply work well enough to give people a better standard of living, access to some foreign goods, and business opportunities.

It will be necessary to put this new resources on the civil sector and more particularly on agriculture (perhaps with automation). In Otl they have a serious lack of civilian industry. If you get the men but not industry you won't go anywere.

I think sadly for 10-15 years things may be a lot like North Korea where men are stuck in state jobs that offer little pay, while women are the ones working in the black markets and running small businesses. The key I believe is to introduce privatization in a way that it doesn't shock the system too much, but provides tangible progress for the individuals willing to take the risks and gives others a road to follow.

Even today in China about 40% of the economy is locked up in state-owned enterprises.

Off the top of my head the modern Russian economy is also heavily weighted towards state ownership, the military, and resource extraction, with a thin layer of more diverse private business. Copy-pasting it onto the utter disaster that was the Soviet economy of the 1980s would be a massive improvement.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

They don't need to be friendly with the West for there to be a limited amount of trade. There was even trade during the OTL Cold War. A lot of the Soviets' missiles used electronics bought from the West via various channels. Without them the Soviet nuclear deterrent would not have worked.

Keeping the Cold War going, at least notionally, is useful insofar as it gives the Soviet ideology an enemy to direct public attention towards.

If the reforms went right, Soviet citizens will be able to buy blue jeans, whether they're made in America or China. Food supply will be more privatized so people won't have to spend hours waiting in line to buy 100 jars of jam to take home and trade for other daily essentials. With low-level consumer enterprises developing, there will also be a lot of Soviet knockoffs of Western clothes, apparel, etc, mainly for internal consumption.

This USSR wont experience extremely rapid growth like the PRC. It's not going to take in tons of foreign money. It will simply work well enough to give people a better standard of living, access to some foreign goods, and business opportunities.

It's not essential to end the Cold War but what advantage would you gain from not doing so?
Distracting public attention doesn't give you any advantages, most of the Soviet population didn't care as long as it could its life normally.
While the advantages from doing so aren't incredible, they still are a good bonus.

I think sadly for 10-15 years things may be a lot like North Korea where men are stuck in state jobs that offer little pay, while women are the ones working in the black markets and running small businesses. The key I believe is to introduce privatization in a way that it doesn't shock the system too much, but provides tangible progress for the individuals willing to take the risks and gives others a road to follow.

Soviet Union isn't the same thing as North Korea

 

[Crueldwarf]

A lot of the Soviets' missiles used electronics bought from the West via various channels. Without them the Soviet nuclear deterrent would not have worked.

No, Soviet military used exclusively domestically produced electronics. It was one of the reasons why USSR lagged so much behind the West in consumer electronics department. Simply because limited production capacity and trained personnel was fully oriented on a military production with their specific set of requirements entirely superfluous for a civilian product.

So when Gorbachev came with a bunch of his (and his advisors) great ideas about how to diversify military-oriented industries into consumer goods production at the same time as opening the domestic market to the foreign competition it all blew up quite spectacularly. Soviet industry had little time to adjust and inevitably lost the fight.

People here said that it was Glasnost and free speech that finished off the Union. It is dead wrong. Glasnost was almost immaterial in the grand scheme of things (at least outside of allowing the republican power centers to fan the nationalism flames) and the primary reason behind collapse of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev's economic policy. It was entirely possible for the USSR to survive on the late 70s - early 80s model for more than a decade, nothing critical was going on there.

But Gorbachev with his fetish of introducing free market elements at random screwed everything up.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Gorby wasn't the man to reform the soviet economy, that'd be Beria, prboably.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

No, Soviet military used exclusively domestically produced electronics. It was one of the reasons why USSR lagged so much behind the West in consumer electronics department. Simply because limited production capacity and trained personnel was fully oriented on a military production with their specific set of requirements entirely superfluous for a civilian product.

Yeah, in my research I always found it interesting how the demands of the Soviet military distorted the civilian side of things because the former had actually workable quality control while the latter did not. This resulted in stuff like unofficial networks being set-up to channel all the good intermediate products (steel, plastics, glass, etc.) over to the defence plants while the civilian industries got the shoddy shit.

It was entirely possible for the USSR to survive on the late 70s - early 80s model for more than a decade, nothing critical was going on there.

I mean, sure. Nothing IMMEDIATELY critical was going on there, but the problem was that the system was clearly not competitive and would eventually result in the USSR becoming increasingly decrepit unless they managed to force through SOME kind of workable economic reform. It's just they wound up forcing through reforms that exploded everything instead.

So when Gorbachev came with a bunch of his (and his advisors) great ideas about how to diversify military-oriented industries into consumer goods production at the same time as opening the domestic market to the foreign competition it all blew up quite spectacularly. Soviet industry had little time to adjust and inevitably lost the fight.
...
But Gorbachev with his fetish of introducing free market elements at random screwed everything up.

That does suggest that one or the other might have worked better rather than trying both at the same time.