> Look at Spain's economy, how it is transformed after Franco died and the fascist regime is removed and the country opens up, gets less centralized.

The graph shoots up in 1960 and slows down in 1975. Franco died in 1975, so your assumption that fascism and central planning hurt the economy is contradicted by the data.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the actual cause was that the old central planners were replaced by new ones who were actually competent and made policies to support industrialization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle

It’s amazing to me, and deeply concerning, that you’re being downvoted for this. Those of us who work in tech are so firmly ensconced in that bubble that we actually think microchips defeated the USSR.

My point was that the microchip industry is a critical part for the developing economy. Today the Bay Area (not California) has 1/2 the GDP of all of Russia! I realize there are lots of industries in the Bay Area besides hardware and software engineering, but that's a pretty stark contrast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose%E2%80%93San_Francisco...

https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp

Obviously there were lots of reasons the Soviet Union collapsed (Chernobyl, for instance). But ignoring the importance of the computer industry in the information era seems like a big oversight.

You never lived in a communist state, have you? Do you even realize that even basic things were fucked up beyond belief/comprehension to the average american. (perhaps not, to the average foreigner that have lived in failed states).

Again, I was comparing data from the 50s and early 60s, where computers were just not that wide use yet and the computer industry was not even a blip on the overall economy.

You also can claim: Today's US entertainment output, equals half of USSR's GDP. Then US won the cold war because it's move industry. Than you can do the same comparison for medical, agriculture, etc... etc.. then you see the trend that due to its failed system, the USSR was behind the US in every field, and tech was just one of them.

> You never lived in a communist state, have you? Do you even realize that even basic things were fucked up beyond belief/comprehension to the average american. (perhaps not, to the average foreigner that have lived in failed states).

I haven't, but why does it matter? I'm not saying communism is better than democracy, nor did I imply it. Things have been way more fucked up in North Korea longer than the Soviet Union survived, so just being fucked up is not enough for a government to fail (not that I'm optimistic about North Korea's future).

> Again, I was comparing data from the 50s and early 60s, where computers were just not that wide use yet and the computer industry was not even a blip on the overall economy.

I think most people on HN are familiar with the story of how computers won WWII, where Von Neumann used them to decipher German and Japanese encrypted communications. Also the Apollo missions were all controlled by circuits. Computers have been massively important (and expensive - the modern equivalent of ~100 billion USD was spent putting a man on the moon, and some of that includes developing IC technology) for a while.

> You also can claim: Today's US entertainment output, equals half of USSR's GDP. Then US won the cold war because it's move industry. Than you can do the same comparison for medical, agriculture, etc... etc.. then you see the trend that due to its failed system, the USSR was behind the US in every field, and tech was just one of them.

Except the Soviets weren't trying to replicate the movie industry because it wasn't particularly useful for them. But they immediately understood the value of computers, and put significant efforts into developing their technologies.

And the Soviets weren't behind in everything. Contrary to popular belief, the Soviets were ahead in the Space Race until Korolev died. If you want an example of petty politics ruining a nation's future - Korolev's death is my all time favorite. That man made Von Braun look ordinary. It's weird to think how history might have turned out differently had the Soviet Union not sent one of the most brilliant men in history to the gulags.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev

Ironically the US did something similarly stupid by refusing to allow Qian Xuesen to stay in the United States, effectively creating the Chinese space program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

Please stop digging further into the hole you've dug. The theory you posit is that Semiconductors were key to the fall of the Soviet Union, and many helpful people have pointed out fallacies in that argument. Your counter is not a very good one.

> I think most people on HN are familiar with the story of how computers won WWII, where Von Neumann used them to decipher German and Japanese encrypted communications. Also the Apollo missions were all controlled by circuits. Computers have been massively important (and expensive - the modern equivalent of ~100 billion USD was spent putting a man on the moon, and some of that includes developing IC technology) for a while.

Sure, they have been important, but again, they're not the key. As others have pointed out, the USSR was economically behind the US even right at the beginning of the cold war. Technically, the USSR was able to fight the Germans specifically because of the billions of dollars in Material that the US supplied to the USSR. The American view of the Soviet Union has been shaped by the simple fact of MAD with nukes and various made up scares (e.g. the space race), but if you look at economic and sociological data (e.g. life expectancy), the US was ahead of the USSR for the duration of the cold war.

As the GP has pointed out, reasonable people came to the conclusion that the system could not continue to exist without massive repression and tried to change it.

Your other arguments don't seem to make any sense, and are just referencing historical tidbits.

> The theory you posit is that Semiconductors were key to the fall of the Soviet Union

Had the Soviets developed IC technology and the US failed to do so, do you still believe the Cold War would have turned out roughly the same? I suspect it would have bolstered the Soviet economy, allowed them to develop technology faster than their adversaries, and ultimately win. You're right, this is a guess, because it's impossible to know. I'm also not pretending it's an infallible argument, just as others have pointed out flaws in your theory (that the USSR failed because it lagged behind in terms of economic growth) elsewhere in this thread. I feel like you're focusing on the end of the Cold War, and I'm looking earlier and how it could have influenced those later conditions. It's like trying to understand Germany in the 1930's without considering WW1 - there's a reason it developed that way.

I don't think there was only 1 key thing that decided victory of the Cold War, I believe there were many key things. To clarify, a key thing is something important enough by itself to swing the pendulum either way. I already mentioned the development of IC technology by the US and the Chernobyl failure by the Soviets.

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective. Agree to disagree.

Your arguments are completely superfluous and I’m getting tired of repeating the same argument. Any impact of ICs would be minimal considering the massive shortfall in other areas of the Soviet Economy. If you want to speculate wildly on shaky ground, go ahead. But don’t think for a moment that you have some unique insight into how these things work: you clearly don’t, and are just trying to hold on to a ridiculous idea that you think you came up with.

I never claimed it was my own idea - it's not. I just found it interesting and wanted to share it with people, and judging by the upvotes many other people also found it interesting. Isn't that why we're all on HN - to talk about things we find interesting?

I think you're looking at this as a debate instead of a conversation. I don't care whether or not you agree with me. I'm sorry you found the idea so distasteful.

It’s not the idea that I find distasteful as much as your attempt to defend it and make it appear as a difference of opinion rather than a difference in reality. A lot of the mess we are in today politically is because the media has become experts in teaching people how to defend fairly incredulous ideas, and when those ideas are shown not to hold any water, to end the argument with “let’s just agree to disagree”. That’s not how we reason about facts, and especially about history. Avoiding the mistakes of the past requires us to clearly understand the mistakes made by those who came before us. Theories that don’t hold up water faced with facts are just fantasies and must be treated as such.

Okay. From your perspective you've already discredited my argument, and from mine I still believe what I said. Where do we go from here if we can't agree to disagree?

I'm sincerely trying to have a conversation here. I feel like you're frustrated because you're sure I'm wrong, and you're unable to convince me I'm wrong. But that's just the way the world works. In fact, it's a cornerstone of the very system you're so passionately arguing is superior (western democracy / capitalism - I realize these aren't the same but in this instance it seems relevant to blur the lines). Sometimes people are going to vote against you, even if they're "wrong."

Why not just accept that I'm wrong and move on? What makes you think it's even possible to change my mind at this point?

https://xkcd.com/386/

I can understand that you're frustrated, but at this point I'm not sure what your goal is unless you still think you can change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind as much as discredit your arguments. i.e. you are free to peddle whatever wacko theory you want to, but the specific arguments you try to give weight to your theory have been shown in this thread to not be very strong.

If you think your theory is still valid without any good arguments for it, you are free to continue spreading them. You will just not be taken very seriously by people who consider fact-based arguments as a foundation for reasoned arguments, which incidentally are many people in this particular forum.

> I'm not trying to change your mind as much as discredit your arguments.

For what it's worth, I actually appreciate this - even though it probably doesn't seem that way.

> You will just not be taken very seriously by people who consider fact-based arguments as a foundation for reasoned arguments, which incidentally are many people in this particular forum.

The upvotes on my comments suggest people found what I had to say interesting. Of course that doesn't make me right :)

Cheers.

Agreed. While HN is a great forum for discussing tech, the technological obsession can really warp the world view of some when it comes to history. However, its the presence of level-headed folks (like you) who point out these things that somewhat makes up for it.

ICs and computers may have been a huge part of the downfall, especially if you consider how important they are in warfare.

"1. its economic model was dysfunctional and a failure"

The USSR had a good economy for some time. During Stalins brutal industrialization, growth rates may have even outclassed Chinas. E.g. 13% p.a. over 12 years, the numbers are controversial. I have a paper about it. Fact is, in WW1 and WW2 Germany faced a very different country.

The later decline may also correlate with declining oil production. The USSR sold a lot of Oil and Gas to the west.

"The soviet union failed, because centralized, collectivism, and having all the output owned by the state is a failure as a model...."

This is also true fro China and the last word, if the system is sustainable or not, is not spoken in this regards.

I tell you a secret: The western market oriented, capitalistic system is also bound to fail.

1. Due to the inherent feature to use debt to prefinance production, the economy has always to keep growing. It is not possible to use our current capitalistic system in a steady state economy.

2. Since wealth and economic growth are interlinked and energy is more or less limited, the system has to come to a stop sooner or later.

Central planned economy didn't work traditionally because it is so difficult to get all the information to make plans. It was too slow to adapt. I think with the age of AI and IoT, it may actually is the time for central planning to shine.

When there was a referendum asking the people in all reoublics whether to keep the Soviet Union or dismantle it, the overwhelming majority, 70+ percent, voted to keep it. The leadership dismantled it anyway. When asking why, it usually is useful to ask cui bono.

We're apparently just far enough away from the Berlin wall falling that now people want to re-litigate that the Soviet Union was bad and it was a good thing it collapsed.

I have seen people who dislike the democratic party in the US on both the left and the right adopt this stance in the context of the Trump-Russia question.

The argument goes that all the former Soviet, but current NATO/EU states (and states with factions who might want to join, like Ukraine) never wanted to leave Russian control.

I disagree with this, but I would note that it's too simple to say something is simply good/bad here. The Soviet Union despite its problems did have some notable accomplishments.

> The argument goes that all the former Soviet, but current NATO/EU states (and states with factions who might want to join, like Ukraine) never wanted to leave Russian control.

You mean "conspiracy theory".

I know you're pointing it out as a dubious argument, but stuff like this is what impressionable minds latch onto on the internet.

Yes, I do consider it a conspiracy theory, but stopped short of describing it that way directly. It is also a little personal for me, as I have some Lithuanian heritage.

Those who were for keeping USSR - were they mostly from Russia or from Republics? Because it might look like metropoly citizens voting for keeping colonies.

It was August Coup by Communist hardliners that prevented the renewal of the federation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum