It was a failure of leadership. They could have beaten the US and even established an internet first with the OGAS program but funding was cut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS
At the time the USSR’s military R+D was actually decentralised and various different branches were competing with one another. The internet we know was a centralised US military project. Ironically the US won because they had better centralisation.
Another aspect of this was the transition from transistor based architectures to Intergrated Circuit architectures. The US made this transition earlier and faster. The USSR had very little in the way of acceptable Integrated Circuit production, so it was slow to move to the better architecture. They made some really cool stuff like BESM-6, a masterpiece even, but it was transistor based.
To try and catch up they copied IBM and that made them dependent on western technologies so they weren’t innovating anymore. The came the microprocessor revolution and they were well and truly behind.
All stems from the root source of failure of leadership to recognise the need to fully commit to it, and also shitty decentralised R+D.
Another factor of this is market. There was no requirement for computers in the USSR outside of Science or Defence. Consider that the entire western computer industry basically evolved from the need for calculators, mostly made by IBM. This was all finance shit. The market for computer innovation was driven by the need for calculation in the market driven economy. This motivation simply did not exist in an economy that was not market driven. There was little need in the Soviet Union to do quarterly projections, calculate capitalisation rates, amortise fixed-costs, etc. All of this drove the production of computers in a way that the USSR simply had no requirement for. In a capitalist economy your entire society has reason to need computers, in a socialist economy only your Science and Defence need it. The capitalists prioritising it faster makes sense when you consider the need would be much more visible for them everywhere in all corners of their system.
Idk it seems like getting the whole planned economy thing right would have been enough motive. If they’d managed big data and applied it to scientific socialism they’d have been unstoppable.
Of course you don’t know what you don’t know.
Yeah but they didn’t really know that at the time. It’s a failure of leadership however to realise just how big and important and transformative this was all going to be. Digitalisation should be looked at historically like industrialisation. They were definitely slow to it.
It’s not as bad as some people make out though. They were like… 7 years behind I would say. Everyone always talks of it as “20 years behind” and that strikes me as an exaggeration.
There was also a sort of battle internally in the Soviet union between the proponents of socialism and the market reformers though which probably didn’t help while simultaneously watching the west get ahead in this area it would have made people seeing it believe that capitalism is innovative without realising the material forces driving it were very different.
i wonder if Allende hadn’t been couped that Cybersyn would’ve made the soviets get into it more
If the Soviets had gotten to digitalisation before the West, and OGAS had created the Internet, not DARPANET…
We, the communists, would probably have won the Cold War. Or at least, we’d have done a hell of a lot better.
God, I want a time machine so I can go knock some sense into Soviet heads of R&D who didn’t see the value of computers.
Me dumping boxes of 90’s era routers and 56k modems through a time portal pointing to 1950’s era USSR trying desperately to make something good happen.
Fuck, that’d be good. I wish we could do that.
There was no requirement for computers in the USSR outside of Science or Defence.
Is this your historical analysis or the analysis of other researchers? (Honestly curious)
I’d think that having an “always on digital communication network” would have been amazing for fine tuning things like transportation logistics and agricuture production/supply to an area as large as the USSR in general and Russia specifically.
Was there such a complete failure of imagination by the USSR leadership or did the leadership do the silly thing of “well, if the West is doing it, it must be silly so we should do the opposite of what they’re doing”?
I know I’ve read (and hard to not find lib sources so I always view them with slight suspicion) that leadership was initially opposed to cybernetics, for example, and considered it as reactionary pseudoscience. Eventually they warmed up to it. But it wasn’t enough to make a difference to how the planned economy worked. And I’ve read that they also viewed OGAS with suspicion too.
Its easy to find lib sources like How Not to Network a Nation, but idk enough communist sources for this (would love to know more). Maybe a proper book hasn’t been written yet about it? Someone dig into the archives and write this stuff up!
And once computers are realized to be useful, then you also have sanctions that the west placed on the USSR that made importing computers more restrictive at certain times.
This is information I learned from speaking with russian comrades. I don’t know if there’s research on the matter, I just trust the people I have had conversations with about it and am mostly regurgitating what they said to me.
What I seem to recall being said was that supporters of market reforms convinced leadership that OGAS would cost far more than their proposals to reform with no guarantees of success.
Another factor of this is market. There was no requirement for computers in the USSR outside of Science or Defence.
That’s just not true. The economy in general has a need of computing, including for automation of production processes, bookkeeping, communication, probably other stuff that doesn’t fall under those.
Yes but the scale of what’s needed and why is very different compared to everyday people in hundreds of thousands of jobs finding direct and obvious benefits in their day to day jobs in a capitalist market driven economy.
Not to mention that the capitalist class itself were the ones directly doing calculations that could see the benefit of computerising what they do every day.
I’m not trying to say a socialist economy wouldn’t benefit from it. What I’m saying is that the forces driving a socialist economy towards it were smaller than the forces driving the capitalist economy towards it due to the sheer number of people that could see the benefits of computers in the west compared to the significantly smaller number of people that could see the direct benefits in the socialist economy. Many thousands of finance people vs only scientists, r+d, leadership and so on.
This isn’t a value judgement against socialist economy either. Just that in this particular instance capitalism’s large number of people working with bullshit made up finance numbers gave capitalism a bigger force pushing towards computerisation. Socialism’s lack of people doing these bullshit “jobs” worked against them in this one particular instance.
Yes but the scale of what’s needed and why is very different compared to everyday people in hundreds of thousands of jobs finding direct and obvious benefits in their day to day jobs in a capitalist market driven economy.
Not sure what you mean there.
Not to mention that the capitalist class itself were the ones directly doing calculations that could see the benefit of computerising what they do every day.
The same applies to the calculations done by various economic leadership figures (from local factory managers to the union government figures), so this does not seem to be a factor.
What I’m saying is that the forces driving a socialist economy towards it were smaller than the forces driving the capitalist economy towards it due to the sheer number of people that could see the benefits of computers in the west compared to the significantly smaller number of people that could see the direct benefits in the socialist economy.
And I don’t see how that could be the reason for that.
This explanation especially doesn’t seem to work when we consider that most of the capitalist world wasn’t any more successful in adopting computers than the USSR.
The much more significant factors seem to be colonial plunder of the world by the imperial core, induction of brain drain in favour of electronics R&D in the imperial core, and the USSR’s liberalisation reforms that led to the stifling of industrial innovation.Many thousands of finance people vs only scientists, r+d, leadership and so on.
How were the ‘finance people’ that were not in leading positions any different from bookkeepers in the USSR in this context?
This isn’t a value judgement against socialist economy either.
I do understand that.
I do, however, think that that explanation does not have a good basis, and am pointing that out.
Having 400,000 of your students, most of them STEM graduate students, who study in American universities every year tend to help with that. And that’s not including postdocs who work and gain experience in top American research labs.
EDIT: Also it is not accurate to say that the USSR struggled to adopt computers. In the 1990s, after the fall of the USSR, many of the top academics emigrated from Russia and other post-Soviet countries instantly received faculty positions in computer science and mathematics departments in the US and other Western academia. This should give you an idea of how strong the fundamental research there existed in the USSR, and how highly their skills were sought after in the West.
lso it is not accurate to say that the USSR struggled to adopt computers. In the 1990s, after the fall of the USSR, many of the top academics emigrated from Russia and other post-Soviet countries instantly received faculty positions in computer science and mathematics departments in the US and other Western academia. This should give you an idea of how strong the fundamental research there existed in the USSR, and how highly their skills were sought after in the West.
There’s a difference between research and implementation on a large scale. I’m talking about the latter. I haven’t been able to find much beyond lib sources, unfortunately, but what I’ve read indicates that the USSR had around 10000 computers at a time when the US had over 1 million.
Also computers became widespread in 1980s when the USSR was in decline (esp under Gorbachev).
I also remember watching a Soviet documentary about computers, they said it was due to lack of investments early on.
I dont know, but the USSR invented and mass distributed Tetris. Perhaps all the programmers were gaming during work hours
I heard the guy that made Tetris was a chud but idk if that’s true
In the apple made movie Tetris (2024), the kgb congratulate him for almost destroying the soviet union
I laughed so much, gosh that movie was a slog, I should write a review or something
I’m not sure why people are doubting you - we just had a thread where many people mentioned the failure to adopt computers as a reason for the fall of the USSR. @ColombianLenin@hexbear.net recommended this video: Why Didn’t the Soviets Automate Their Economy?: Cybernetics in the USSR, by the Marxist Project, which comes with a
bibliography
Abramov, Roman Nikolaevich. 2016. “Soviet Technocratic Mythologies as a Form of the ‘Theory of Missed Opportunities:’ On the Example of the History of Cybernetics in the USSR.” Sociology of Science and Technology 8 (2): 61–78.
“Computers to Improve Soviet Industrial Management.” 1965. Central Intelligence Agency.
Gerovitch, Slava. 2008. “InterNyet: Why the Soviet Union Did Not Build a Nationwide Computer Network.” History and Technology 24 (4): 335-350.
Peters, Benjamin. 2016. How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet. The MITPress.
Safronov, Alexei Vasilievich. 2020. “Computerization of the Planned Economy in the USSR: Projects of Scientists and the Needs of Practitioners.” Sociology of Science and Technology 11 (3): 22–41.
Safronov, Alexei Vasilievich. 2022. “Bureaucratic and Technological Limitations of Computerization of Planning in the USSR.” Economicheskaya Politika 17 (2): 120–45.
Trachtenberg, Anna Davidovna. 2006. “The Myth of the Greatness of Electricity Within the Soviet Technocratic Utopia: Glushkov’s ‘OGAS’ [ Миф о Величии Электричества в Рамках Советской Технократической Утопии: «ОГАС» Академика Глушкова.].” Discourse-P 6 (1): 45–47.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
There’s a nice video about it by Asianometrics or something like that
In what sense did the USSR struggle to adopt computers?
Also, I doubt that the PRC was more successful at adopting computers than the USSR during the latter’s existence.In what sense did the USSR struggle to adopt computers?
I haven’t been able to find much beyond lib sources, unfortunately, but what I’ve read indicates that the USSR had around 10000 computers at a time when the US had over 1 million.
Taking a look into this, though, again, I don’t really see how you are comparing the USSR to the PRC, which most likely did not have a large amount of ‘computers’ (whatever is counted as a ‘computer’ in this context) at the time (around 1970, I take it?)
Linear time?
We didn’t adopt computers in the west till after the 90 really.
I am gonna split hairs and say that old shitbox units that we were running pirated copies of ultima on don’t meaningfully add to the west capacity.
Like, in the way of having blue jeans we had them, but it wouldn’t meaninfully add to the situation you know? I was in grade school at the time and we had one room with computers in it, they were outdated and used to do math programs. I fucking loved number munches but that was just a toy you know?
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Ubiquity builds a base of familiarity that makes it easier to attract new workers. The first domino that led to me becoming a programmer was playing Super Nintendo as a kid. It also implies well-established fabrication ability, which implies a solid base of machinery and technical expertise.
I don’t get the point of this comparison with China unless you also look at Chinese computer industry in the same time period.
Whatever criticism you may have of the USSR’s rate of adoption how is this comparable to the Chinese experience in the 21st century? China can only have a computer industry at all because of the decades they spent being friendly with the west, having all their factories at home and proactively not giving a shit about patents and copyright.
If the USSR had the opportunity to have iPhone factories in Moscow perhaps history would be different too otherwise what is the point?
I don’t get the point of this comparison with China
To learn more about why, between two major socialist nations, one has a large manufacturing base and high adoption rate of computers compared to its contemporaries and the other did not, so as to gain a better understanding of how nations in general develop economically.
Bulgaria, East Germany and USSR were pioneers of computing and electronic engineering. They just collapsed too soon to make any noticeable dent in the history and never conducted state-wide installation.
