6 ms·

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 f

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.

jbay808 6y ago
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.
- machawinka 6y ago
  Excelente point. What is Russia nowadays? And how can we compare those 40 years with these 40 years unfolding.
raphaelj 6y ago
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.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  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.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    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.
  - iguy 6y ago
    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.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    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.
    - throwaway316943 6y ago
      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.
orthoxerox 6y ago
> 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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  Much of Russia's industry was foreign owned, eg 80% of her railways. 90% of the peasants were illiterate.
sergeykish 6y ago
You have to check facts > 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. +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ | Сountry | 1881–1885 | 1896–1900 | 1913 | +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ | United States | 28.6 | 30.1 | 35.8 | | United Kingdom | 26.6 | 19.5 | 14.0 | | Germany | 13.9 | 16.6 | 15.7 | | France | 8.6 | 7.1 | 6.4 | | Russia | 3.4 | 5.0 | 5.3 | +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ > 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russi...
- RobertoG 6y ago
  Fair enough, I regret expressing it that way. 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.
  - zhte415 6y ago
    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.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    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.
iguy 6y ago
> 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.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  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.
  - iguy 6y ago
    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.
    - RobertoG 6y ago
      >>"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. (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution
drran 6y ago
In 1917, Russia was the third major power in the world. In 1957, USSR was seventh. For example, building of metro in Kyiv was planned to start in 1918.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  It’s not a common question but it’s interesting to think where we would be today if Russia had become a free society.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  That's simply not true.

jbay808 6y ago

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.

machawinka 6y ago
Excelente point. What is Russia nowadays? And how can we compare those 40 years with these 40 years unfolding.

raphaelj 6y ago

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.

throwaway316943 6y ago
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.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  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.
- iguy 6y ago
  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.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  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.
  - throwaway316943 6y ago
    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.

orthoxerox 6y ago

> 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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Synaesthesia 6y ago
Much of Russia's industry was foreign owned, eg 80% of her railways. 90% of the peasants were illiterate.

sergeykish 6y ago

You have to check facts > 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. +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ | Сountry | 1881–1885 | 1896–1900 | 1913 | +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ | United States | 28.6 | 30.1 | 35.8 | | United Kingdom | 26.6 | 19.5 | 14.0 | | Germany | 13.9 | 16.6 | 15.7 | | France | 8.6 | 7.1 | 6.4 | | Russia | 3.4 | 5.0 | 5.3 | +----------------+-----------+-----------+------+ > 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization_in_the_Russi...

RobertoG 6y ago
Fair enough, I regret expressing it that way. 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.
- zhte415 6y ago
  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.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  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.

iguy 6y ago

> 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.

RobertoG 6y ago
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.
- iguy 6y ago
  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.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    >>"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. (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution

drran 6y ago

In 1917, Russia was the third major power in the world. In 1957, USSR was seventh. For example, building of metro in Kyiv was planned to start in 1918.

throwaway316943 6y ago
It’s not a common question but it’s interesting to think where we would be today if Russia had become a free society.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
That's simply not true.