Russian here. Unfortunately, our technological success was mostly limited to military production. And even there, quite a lot of technological processes and templates were simply stolen by our spies (starting from our nuclear weapons program). Granted, Americans used to do that too... USSR used to have a lot of independent discoveries and inventions. But nearly all of them were targeted to the military; Soviet cars, television sets, washing machines etc. were all truly awful.
I think it's still impressive. In 1917, Russia was one of the most backwards countries in Europe, practically a feudal agrarian society. The USA was already a fairly advanced industrial economy.
In 1957, only forty years later, and after suffering the revolution, the First and Second World War, Russia won an important steep in the space race.
Granted, those were very hard times for the Russian people, but, still, credit where it's due.
> In search of a way out of this difficult situation, the government made deliberate efforts that led to an unprecedented industrial boom that began in 1893. The years of this boom were a time of economic modernization of Russia under the auspices of the state.
> Also, in 1915–1917, a large-scale modernization of industry was carried out, and, unlike the pre-war period, most part of the equipment was produced by domestic enterprises
> On the eve of the revolution, the country's national income was 16.4 billion rubles (7.4% of the world total). According to this indicator, the Russian Empire ranked fourth after the United States, Germany and the British Empire.
Roberto is essentially correct, even by your own data. Russia has been 'behind' for literally centuries, even to this day.
In 1910 'Russian Empire' was 170 Million people, the US was 100 Million people. We're talking about 10x GDP per capita.
That would be like the US vs. Morocco today.
Today GDP per capita is $66K US vs. $12K Russia which is substantial.
Russia has, for a long time, hard 'fairly large, inefficient economic base'.
They have power mostly because of their size, and their 'acute' ability to produce things (they have very smart people), and of course their aggressive Imperial view of things.
Serfdom abolished in 1861, by 1917 forth country by GDP. Table I've cited shows increase of share in world production while shares of UK, Germany and France were decreasing. It occupied a leading position in world agriculture.
USSR reintroduced serfdom, peasants had no passports, they could not move into town without permissions [1]. USSR had famines in 1921–1923 and 1932–33, about ten of millions died. Total mismanagement. There was rebirth after Stalins death, if only they've introduced reforms like later in China.
Russia today is mostly resource-based economy [2].
1) Yes, 'Russian Empire' is different than 'Russia' is different than 'USSR' - but in 1910 it was 'The Russian Empire' so I used that as a basis of comparison.
2) It doesn't matter that much if 'Russia version X' share of world economy was 'growing' for some range of a few decades if it's literally 1/10th the per capita economic power of those other nations. It's still a 'way behind'.
In fact, the 'further behind' the quicker growth should be. Most of the 'very poor' nations of the world today are growing very quickly.
'Russia Version X' has always been quite far behind, it's been that way for centuries, since the dawn of what we might even call 'Russia'.
> In fact, the 'further behind' the quicker growth should be. Most of the 'very poor' nations of the world today are growing very quickly.
That's exactly my point. Apply "per capita" to China several decades ago, it does not translate to its status today. It started with 1978 reform [1], per capita would eventually catch up.
> 'Russia Version X' has always been quite far behind ...
That's hand wavy, I can apply same rhetoric to Japan and some periods of China. In parallel universe USSR took required reforms and PRC didn't. Russian Empire had fourth GDP in the world, that's not Morocco, that's economy of Japan or Germany plus pool of cheap labor and natural resources.
You might be interested in this [1] 'Rise and Fall of Great Powers' - they go through the industrial output numbers in great detail from 1500-1950 and articulate Russia's constant problems at length.
And yes, Japan and China were 'way behind' as well in most of the modern era.
Anyway, In 1917, it was the poorest country per capita of Europe except Portugal and suffered the revolution and the first and the second world war. I think is kind of surprising that, starting in that position, they could keep the pace in a race with the USA.
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, a fascinating read, not an easy read either, but if any HN reader is looking for something... a masterpiece that is true to today across countries and cultures.
I can't see how per capita helps in comparison. I think there were a lot of non industrial states in US, industrial centers and workforce pool is all that matters.
French First Republic too suffered from revolution yet two decades later it (First Empire) conquered much of the Europe. There was no other choice for USSR. All wealth flooded into militaristic complex. System could effectively produce weapon but it could not solve citizens needs.
> In 1917, Russia was one of the most backwards countries in Europe
But the counterfactual isn't stasis. Russia of 1913 was busy on the same sort of government-driven upswing that Germany had ridden a few years earlier, there was lots of modernization going on and lots more planned. The soviet propaganda of course was very keen to downplay this, so they pushed "practically a feudal agrarian society" ideas hard.
At the same time as making Spitnik & submarines, and many many tractors, I think they also never equaled the 1913 harvest. At their peak, perhaps early 60s, they were still importing a lot of food from the prairies. In the 80s, without imports, the calculation was that they'd have been back to WWII levels of rationing.
All that is probably truth (even if serfdom was a thing until 1861 and so late like 1915 they were still dealing with the consequences), but there is a clear historical fact, whatever the soviet propaganda said: people well feed and happy don't start communist revolutions.
You mention Germany. The Bismark government (hardly a communist government) created the first social security program, probably because they were afraid of what could happen if they don't.
Yes there are lots of parallels to Germany, which also took a very state-driven development line in general, and this intensified during the war. I think Lenin's model was explicitly that of WWI germany. Of course the Prussian PR machine didn't sound much like the soviet one, but they were hardly polar opposites.
And the people eating the 1913 harvest didn't start a revolution. The empire fell apart after years of war (as did the Austrians, and the Turks) and then many factions duked it out. And then reconquered all the hungry people who hoped they'd seen the last of guys from Moscow, with guns.
>>"And the people eating the 1913 harvest didn't start a revolution. The empire fell apart after years of war [..]"
I don't think it's so simple. We have to account for the revolution in 1905. The Wikipedia article is a good one (1) and I think it shows the zeitgeist. In my view is the pressure of the system in the peasants and in the proletariat what creates the conditions for 1917, even if the wars were the trigger.
> In 1917, Russia was one of the most backwards countries in Europe, practically a feudal agrarian society.
That "feudal society" had built the Trans-Siberian railway. While it certainly was lagging behind the Western Europe in industrialization, it was a solid second-tier country, like Japan or AH.
No only suffering from the 2nd world war, but undoubtedly being the hardest hit nation.
It's like being a centralized economy really helps when you have to catch-up a competitor, and when the path to achieve that is very well understood. By contrast, market economies shine when innovation is the driver of growth.
Not sure about that. Japan caught up to the West twice and surpassed it in some ways without being a planned economy. Same thing with Germany vs England and France. I think the determiner here is a national will and pride that drives the hard work necessary to modernize. There are plenty of positive feedback loops in free societies as well since modernization brings a lot of everyday improvements that are available to everyone in a market economy. Planned economies lack that particular incentive and often have very negative side effects like famine and political purges that probably hinder modernization efforts.
There was no Marshall Plan for Russia, though. Never mind whether the economies of Japan and Germany were "planned" or not, it was the stated policy of the US and other victors of WWII that they would not be allowed to fail economically.
Russia was more or less devastated, having lost more soldiers and civilians than everyone else except China combined. With Communism, they chose to maintain an adversarial stance towards the West, and they're still paying dearly for it today. The entire history of Russia seems to consist of smart people making one bad decision after another.
People forget that both Germany and Japan did most of their catching up before the world wars. That was the period to which I was referring in the case of Germany.
Maybe Japan was not a planned economy, in the Soviet sense, but it was hardly a model of "laissez-faire" with their zaibatsus and keiretsus and a very clear industrial and protectionist policy implemented from the state.
Japan also had quite a bit of planning. Not at the level that the Soviets had, but much more state direction of which industries to pursue and how they would be funded than US/England ever had, and for most of a century.
For a timeline comparison, we're coming up quick on forty years after the collapse of the USSR and the adoption of a market economy. It's pretty incredible how time flies. I wonder if we'll see a similar transformation.
