Without Communism, is Russia likely to experience a suburban boom in the late 20th and 21st centuries like the US experienced?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#61
If it wasn’t for ww1, there was a plan for Russia to finance and connect Russia to Alaska by rail. If my links work.

Locomotive Engineers Journal

FOR BERING STRAIT BRIDGE.; Czar Authorizes American Syndicate to Begin Work.
Theoretically speaking, this project can still be done even today. However, the question might naturally be whether doing this is actually going to be worth it. After all, this area is very sparsely populated and thus I don't think that a lot of people are actually going to be eager to travel in that direction. The only possible exception could be travel by high-speed trains.
 
Likes: sparticulous

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#62
I know this "Stalin's rapid industrialization" is a trope that everyone uses. However, consider the fact that Russia was industrializing at a faster rate before Stalin (they were just starting at a very low base, so it wasn't evident). Soviet "rapid" industrialization was not rapid at all.
But figures indicate the tsarist regime was only able to reach a third of German industrialization in 30 years. Whereas in just a decade, Stalin was able to outproduce German production in tanks etc. And internal fighting, disruptive of progress, was probably inevitable in Russia, even without WWI. What if a revolution and civil war occurred in 1939-41….
 
Aug 2014
272
New York, USA
#63
But figures indicate the tsarist regime was only able to reach a third of German industrialization in 30 years. Whereas in just a decade, Stalin was able to outproduce German production in tanks etc. And internal fighting, disruptive of progress, was probably inevitable in Russia, even without WWI. What if a revolution and civil war occurred in 1939-41….
It is because Russia started industrialization with low base, basically quasi-feudalism. Same thing happened to China. They were only 30% (or even less) of Japan's GDP in the 1980s and 1990s, but % compounding means that the curve starts out almost flat and then it shoots up. If Russia were to maintain their GDP growth, they were on track to exceed Germans a decade earlier without Stalin. China only caught up to Japan a decade ago and now they are triple of Japan's economy. If Russia was already at 30% of German production, that's equivalent to China circa year 2003 vis a vis Japan, the "slow" part of the curve would've been over in about five years.

If you are interested in history of economics, the wave of industrialization in Europe (for various reasons) moved from West to East in roughly this order:
United Kingdom ~1800s
Belgium ~1820s
Germany/France ~1840s
Poland/Hungary ~1880s
Russia ~1890s
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#64
But figures indicate the tsarist regime was only able to reach a third of German industrialization in 30 years. Whereas in just a decade, Stalin was able to outproduce German production in tanks etc. And internal fighting, disruptive of progress, was probably inevitable in Russia, even without WWI. What if a revolution and civil war occurred in 1939-41….
Where are the relevant figures?
 
Feb 2014
291
Miami
#65
Theoretically speaking, this project can still be done even today. However, the question might naturally be whether doing this is actually going to be worth it. After all, this area is very sparsely populated and thus I don't think that a lot of people are actually going to be eager to travel in that direction. The only possible exception could be travel by high-speed trains.
Putin still wants to do it if I recall. The areas may be sparse, but with global warming of these regions, maybe greater access to these regions, they can be exploited for their reservoirs of natural resources. I really think the region would grow from nothing with this infrastructure.

If the USA and Russia can set goals to progress industry for peace rather than a new arms race. I don’t even see its purpose, the USA will win an arms race, so why does the media want to paint Russia as some sort of threat.
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2014
272
New York, USA
#66
Putin still wants to do it if I recall. The areas may be sparse, but with global warming of these regions, maybe greater access to these regions, they can be exploited for their reservoirs of natural resources. I really think the region would grow from nothing with this infrastructure.

If the USA and Russia can set goals to progress industry for peace rather than a new arms race. I don’t even see its purpose, the USA will win an arms race, so why does the media want to paint Russia as some sort of threat.
There are still some preliminary infrastructure work in the Russian Far East that needs to be done. After the Russians constructed the Kerch strait bridge connecting Crimea to mainland Russia, they have the following infrastructure projects in mind:
Bridge over the river Lena - this bridge, deep inside Siberia, will connect Yakutsk to the Russian (and world) road and rail network. This is the last of the great Russian rivers that did not have a bridge crossing due to the challenging terrain and permafrost. I believe construction on this actually started already. This bridge is significant, because Lena bisects that whole section of Siberia and the Far East and there are no West to East uninterrupted connections until you hit trans-Siberian all the way south near the border with China.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Lena_River_basin.png
Bridge/tunnel to Sakhalin island - connecting Sakhalin to mainland Russia. Preliminary studies began. I think after they build the bridge over Lena, this will finally have a chance of being built sometime in the 2020s.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,935
SoCal
#67
Putin still wants to do it if I recall. The areas may be sparse, but with global warming of these regions, maybe greater access to these regions, they can be exploited for their reservoirs of natural resources. I really think the region would grow from nothing with this infrastructure.

If the USA and Russia can set goals to progress industry for peace rather than a new arms race. I don’t even see its purpose, the USA will win an arms race, so why does the media want to paint Russia as some sort of threat.
Russia needs more people if it wants to develop these territories. Russia has too few people as it is for the vast territory that it controls.

As for the hostility towards Russia, this began in 2014 as a result of Russia's actions in Ukraine.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#68
It is because Russia started industrialization with low base, basically quasi-feudalism. Same thing happened to China. They were only 30% (or even less) of Japan's GDP in the 1980s and 1990s, but % compounding means that the curve starts out almost flat and then it shoots up. If Russia were to maintain their GDP growth, they were on track to exceed Germans a decade earlier without Stalin.
You didn't address two points I raised. First was the likelihood, even without WWI, of a revolution in Russia. As the country modernized so its middle class grew inevitably there would've been demands for political reform. Assuming the tsarist regime resisted the demands, the result would've been revolution and civil war, setting the country back quite a bit. Also, even if a transition to democracy was smooth, so progress was uninterrupted, it's highly unlikely Russia could've built sufficient forces in peacetime to withstand Barbarossa. Even with Stalin's vast buildup, WWII was a pretty close run affair.

If you are interested in history of economics, the wave of industrialization in Europe (for various reasons) moved from West to East in roughly this order:
United Kingdom ~1800s
Germany/France ~1840s
I was under the impression the bulk of French industrialization occurred in the 1850s and Germany industrialized c 1870.
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2014
272
New York, USA
#69
You didn't address two points I raised. First was the likelihood, even without WWI, of a revolution in Russia. As the country modernized so its middle class grew inevitably there would've been demands for political reform. Assuming the tsarist regime resisted the demands, the result would've been revolution and civil war, setting the country back quite a bit. Also, even if a transition to democracy was smooth, so progress was uninterrupted, it's highly unlikely Russia could've built sufficient forces in peacetime to withstand Barbarossa. Even with Stalin's vast buildup, WWII was a pretty close run affair.
Revolution in Russia already happened without the communists. There were two revolutions in 1917 and the first revolution that happened was much more peaceful, since the tsar stepped down from the throne rather peacefully, compared to the events that happened in October when the communists seized power by force.
I was under the impression the bulk of French industrialization occurred in the 1850s and Germany industrialized c 1870.
My dates were roughly the beginning dates of when industrialization started.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#70
Revolution in Russia already happened without the communists. There were two revolutions in 1917 and the first revolution that happened was much more peaceful, since the tsar stepped down from the throne rather peacefully….
Yeah but that was because the tsar had already been undermined by WWI and associated problems. Of course they were worse than the setbacks of 1904-5, which the tsarist regime weathered, just like it had done since the Decembrists. Without major defeats (and privations) in wartime, the tsar probably would've staunchly clung to power, even as demands for political reform redoubled with progress. The result, by 1941, could've been utterly ruinous.
 
Likes: Futurist