3 ms·

So, you're saying that being first in space wasn't moving forward? > Especially on electronics and computers. I strongly suspect that was due to lack of resou

So, you're saying that being first in space wasn't moving forward? > Especially on electronics and computers. I strongly suspect that was due to lack of resources for research, rather than lack of ability, as by the time there was a serious focus on these areas, the economy wasn't doing so well.

mantas 9y ago
Computer research was more because Soviet elite didn't believe in computing. Thus resources were allocated differently. Sicne there was no free market, nobody took a stab on their own either. "Economy" didn't mean shit in USSR. It was all about priorities. War in Afghanistan got plenty of resources in meantime. As well as aiding friendly regimes around the globe. Meanwhile citizens were having a hard time in their daily lives and civilian industry was falling behind. If we're going to cherry pick, we could say that tsarist Russia was highly modern country since Medelev figured out the elements table. Yet it's accepted it was an agricultural country, falling behind and fast. USSR, aside from several areas where they threw all their resources, was falling behind too. So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. It's like saying that North Korea is catching up thanks to their ICBM programme progress :) P.S. Germans/Nazis were the ones who got both USSR and USA into space.
- AsyncAwait 9y ago
  > Computer research was more because Soviet elite didn't believe in computing True, what I meant was exactly this. There's always resources plenty for the things elites consider important, but if there was enough of them and then some, something would have trickled down to computing also. > War in Afghanistan got plenty of resources in meantime. As well as aiding friendly regimes around the globe. Meanwhile citizens were having a hard time in their daily lives Just like in every empire ever, including the U.S. at present, (still no universal healthcare there). > So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. Agreed, but how is this different today?
  - mantas 9y ago
    > True, what I meant was exactly this. There's always resources plenty for the things elites consider important, but if there was enough of them and then some, something would have trickled down to computing also. Or they'd have had more resources towards military or friendly regimes. Those 2 are kinda black holes for money > Just like in every empire ever, including the U.S. at present, (still no universal healthcare there). I don't think finances are stopping universal healthcare in US. It's purely ideological. > > So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. > Agreed, but how is this different today? In Russia - it's same old. I wouldn't consider it a democracy or west or whatever either. In the west, people have radically better living standards and they seem to be going to much bigger compromises with their ideals for the sake of comfort. E.g. Nord Stream gas pipe.
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      > I don't think finances are stopping universal healthcare in US. It's purely ideological. Ideology is used as a mask to protect corporate (private insurance) interests, which is why the top brass doesn't have interest in universal healthcare. It's a matter of interests and priorities, just like it was a matter of interests and priorities for the Soviets to ficus resources on things other than improving people's living standards. > In the west, people have radically better living standards Compared to Russia, yeah, but there's always the supposed lack of money for public services, which is often magically found for military purposes. It's the same mentality that the USSR had in that instead of funding public services, fund military endeavors. Of course, I am not making a 1:1 equivalence in terms of freedom, but when it comes to allocating resources, today's world doesn't seem all that different.
      - mantas 9y ago
        First of all, I'm talking from European perspective. My exposure to US is limited to Americans I talk to. I met lots of Americans who don't want universal healthcare purely for ideological reasons. Their arguments sometimes do make sense actually. Universal health care in Europe has it's fair share of problems and some aspects of US system are used to fix it. And yes, average European and American (as much as that can be generalised) are quire different ideologically. For example, national ID and police having rights to ask for it is kinda a given in Europe. Nobody thinks that's wrong. Now try to tell that to Americans :) Or your attitude to various government-related things. On top of that, even if it was purely corruption in US government, it'd be already different from USSR. Where it was ideologically motivated to put everything into military. In USSR, citizens didn't have even theoretical power to have a say in allocating resources. Parties putting forward proposals and then trying to (not) follow through is infinitely different. Oh, and at least in Europe, they sometimes do follow through. And the major difference is private sector existence. Soviets cared little if consumer goods are any good. A shirt is a shirt, if it has shitty fit or lame colors - it's a customer's problem. Meanwhile factory will keep making them for decades without any improvements. Scarcity of everyday goods? Meh, who needs toilet paper when we can build few more tanks. Meanwhile in capitalism system adjusts itself very quickly. Actually, the problems you listed, just shows how government is always abusing whatever powers it got. Soviet system being extreme example of all-reaching government power. While different capitalist systems have more or less fixed that. Unfortunately 100% capitalist system is not viable either, since it needs checks to keep companies from abusing it.

mantas 9y ago

Computer research was more because Soviet elite didn't believe in computing. Thus resources were allocated differently. Sicne there was no free market, nobody took a stab on their own either. "Economy" didn't mean shit in USSR. It was all about priorities. War in Afghanistan got plenty of resources in meantime. As well as aiding friendly regimes around the globe. Meanwhile citizens were having a hard time in their daily lives and civilian industry was falling behind. If we're going to cherry pick, we could say that tsarist Russia was highly modern country since Medelev figured out the elements table. Yet it's accepted it was an agricultural country, falling behind and fast. USSR, aside from several areas where they threw all their resources, was falling behind too. So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. It's like saying that North Korea is catching up thanks to their ICBM programme progress :) P.S. Germans/Nazis were the ones who got both USSR and USA into space.

AsyncAwait 9y ago
> Computer research was more because Soviet elite didn't believe in computing True, what I meant was exactly this. There's always resources plenty for the things elites consider important, but if there was enough of them and then some, something would have trickled down to computing also. > War in Afghanistan got plenty of resources in meantime. As well as aiding friendly regimes around the globe. Meanwhile citizens were having a hard time in their daily lives Just like in every empire ever, including the U.S. at present, (still no universal healthcare there). > So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. Agreed, but how is this different today?
- mantas 9y ago
  > True, what I meant was exactly this. There's always resources plenty for the things elites consider important, but if there was enough of them and then some, something would have trickled down to computing also. Or they'd have had more resources towards military or friendly regimes. Those 2 are kinda black holes for money > Just like in every empire ever, including the U.S. at present, (still no universal healthcare there). I don't think finances are stopping universal healthcare in US. It's purely ideological. > > So yes, sending first human to space is sad when you can't provide adequate life to your own citizens. > Agreed, but how is this different today? In Russia - it's same old. I wouldn't consider it a democracy or west or whatever either. In the west, people have radically better living standards and they seem to be going to much bigger compromises with their ideals for the sake of comfort. E.g. Nord Stream gas pipe.
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    > I don't think finances are stopping universal healthcare in US. It's purely ideological. Ideology is used as a mask to protect corporate (private insurance) interests, which is why the top brass doesn't have interest in universal healthcare. It's a matter of interests and priorities, just like it was a matter of interests and priorities for the Soviets to ficus resources on things other than improving people's living standards. > In the west, people have radically better living standards Compared to Russia, yeah, but there's always the supposed lack of money for public services, which is often magically found for military purposes. It's the same mentality that the USSR had in that instead of funding public services, fund military endeavors. Of course, I am not making a 1:1 equivalence in terms of freedom, but when it comes to allocating resources, today's world doesn't seem all that different.
    - mantas 9y ago
      First of all, I'm talking from European perspective. My exposure to US is limited to Americans I talk to. I met lots of Americans who don't want universal healthcare purely for ideological reasons. Their arguments sometimes do make sense actually. Universal health care in Europe has it's fair share of problems and some aspects of US system are used to fix it. And yes, average European and American (as much as that can be generalised) are quire different ideologically. For example, national ID and police having rights to ask for it is kinda a given in Europe. Nobody thinks that's wrong. Now try to tell that to Americans :) Or your attitude to various government-related things. On top of that, even if it was purely corruption in US government, it'd be already different from USSR. Where it was ideologically motivated to put everything into military. In USSR, citizens didn't have even theoretical power to have a say in allocating resources. Parties putting forward proposals and then trying to (not) follow through is infinitely different. Oh, and at least in Europe, they sometimes do follow through. And the major difference is private sector existence. Soviets cared little if consumer goods are any good. A shirt is a shirt, if it has shitty fit or lame colors - it's a customer's problem. Meanwhile factory will keep making them for decades without any improvements. Scarcity of everyday goods? Meh, who needs toilet paper when we can build few more tanks. Meanwhile in capitalism system adjusts itself very quickly. Actually, the problems you listed, just shows how government is always abusing whatever powers it got. Soviet system being extreme example of all-reaching government power. While different capitalist systems have more or less fixed that. Unfortunately 100% capitalist system is not viable either, since it needs checks to keep companies from abusing it.