1. 1
One Small Step for Man, and One Giant Leap for American
Capitalist Ideologies
Andrew Hall
The “space race” between the Soviet Union and America culminated in the Americans landing a
man on the moon on July 21st
, 1969. Since both countries had been attempting this incredible feat the
event raises important questions as to why America’s space program could reach the moon and the Soviet
Union’s could not. America’s success had been due to contrasting political-economic ideologies between
American free market Capitalism and Soviet Union style Communism. Soviet style Communism based
on Marxist theories had done well in bringing the Soviet Union from a poor country to an industrial giant
causing them to be able to compete in the “space race”. However Soviet Communist ideologies had led to
negative political intervention from the government towards the technical specialists involved in the space
program. Also these same ideologies had led to a centralized planning model of production, which was
less effective at producing critical technology used in the space program compared to the American style
of free market Capitalism. The United States was able to contract a multitude of different engineering
organizations under NASA because of their free market capitalist ideologies leading to a higher increase
in the development and production of technology.
Communist ideologies based on the theories of Marx and Engels had an effect on the production
of science and technology in the USSR from the inception of the revolution to eventually shaping the
Soviet Space Program in the latter part of the 1950’s. Marxist historian David Joravsky mentions that
Marxism was interpreted in different ways by different people. It is based on theories, so Marxist political
leaders had dialectical philosophical differences between each other in interpreting Marx.1
From this
perspective Soviet Communist ideologies led to mismanagement in the space program causing the Soviet
Union to fall behind the United States in space flight technology, and not Marxism itself. I am taking an
1
David Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 16-18. Joravsky
goes over how Marxism was interpreted by different cultures like the Russians, and contrasts those views with
Western interpretations.

2. 2
externalist approach to explaining how well technology is able to progress under separate political and
economic ideologies. Soviet historian Loren Graham mentions that specialists studying Soviet science
have recognized external social factors to explain bad Soviet science, and the social factors mentioned are
usually political interference.2
The political interference is in relation to the communist ideologies in the
Soviet Union, and how they detracted from the progress of the Soviet space program. Communist
Ideologies conversely have led to success in the Soviet space programs rise to prominence. I am
comparing negative effects of Soviet Communist ideologies as opposed to American free market
Capitalism, and how those ideologies have interfered with the production of science and technology in
The USSR.
The USSR was formed in 1917, as a result of a workers revolution of the Bolshevik Communist
party seizing power over the Russian Empire from the Tsarist monarchy. Vladimir Lenin was the first
man in charge of the Bolshevik party and based his ideologies from Marxism, yet his views varied from
Marxism in some ways. Vladimir Lenin’s views on technology were similar to Marx, although he was
much more concentrated on producing large scale technological developments. On March 15, 1918 when
signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany Vladimir Lenin is quoted as saying
The war has taught us much, not only that people suffered, but especially the fact that
those of us who have the best technology, organization, discipline and the best machines
emerge on top; it is this the war has taught us, and it is a good thing it has taught us. It is
essential to learn that without machines, without discipline, it is impossible to live in
modern society. It is necessary to master the highest technology or be crushed.3
This quote was taken from an emotional Lenin on his views of technology and its role in the
success of a nation when signing a treaty that ended Russia’s participation in world war one after
2
Loren R. Graham, Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History, (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1993), 5.
3
Kendall E. Bailes, Technology and society under Lenin and Stalin origins of the Soviet technical intelligentsia,
1917-1941, (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 49. Bailes translated this quote from a Soviet journal
called the Polnoe Sobranie, Vol 26, p. 116.
.

3. 3
suffering a territory loss to the Germans. Due to the context of the political situation; communist values
and technological progression were both being used as a vehicle to bring a once struggling empire to a
world superpower. To be able to create a technological superpower Lenin had to get all of the Soviet
scientists and technical specialists to cooperate with the Bolshevik communist regime. Marxist
Communist philosophies maintain that machinery is enslaving the lower class worker in order to make the
owners of capitol a profit while demeaning the lower class individual’s work; Marx says these workers
are slaves to the upper class and to machines.4
Marxism pushes to eliminate class differentiations through
all of society; the basis of Marxism is eliminating class differentiations5
. Scientists and technical
specialists were a part of the bourgeois upper class during the tsarist monarchy. To have all of society
participate in nationalist motives and consider the state above themselves is Communism in its ideal form,
but is that even feasible? Lenin under Marxist philosophy had plans to integrate the bourgeois scientists
with the lower class and get them to cooperate with Bolshevik nationalist motives of modernization6
. This
is an example of how communist ideologies led to political interference by the Bolshevik party. This
proved very difficult originally as nobody in the Russian Academy of Science were with the Bolshevik
party until many years after the revolution.7
Scientists in the new Soviet Union were very skeptical of the
Bolshevik regime and did not want to cooperate with them or had directly opposed them.
Historians have argued for different reasons as to why the scientific community would not
cooperate with the Bolshevik regime after the revolution. According to Loren Graham the pre-
revolutionary Russian Scientists feared that the Bolsheviks are extremists likely to damage the political
and intellectual future of Russia.8
While historian Kendall Bailes puts the Soviet Union’s technical
4
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Marxists.org, Vol 1. (February 1848): 18.
5
Ibid, The Communist Manifesto protests against class differentiation throughout the entirety of the document,
most heavily in the first chapter.
6
Bailes, 50.
7
Graham, 82.
8
Ibid, 82.

4. 4
specialist’s disagreement with the Bolshevik government in the context of a class struggle with a
communist government trying to convert the upper class scientists into an equal citizen with equal pay.9
Bailes proves that Lenin had plans to detach the technical specialists from the upper class of society.10
This view is heavily related to Marx ideals of eliminating class levels in society. Bailes and Graham are
speaking of two different groups; the technical specialists and scientists within the academy, which fall
under the umbrella of the scientific community. However the technical specialists which Bailes mentions
were more instrumental to creating a rocket then were the scientists in the Russian Academy of Science.
The people placed in charge of building both the military and space rockets were technical specialists
such as Glushko and Korolev. Loren Graham also cites that the scientists in the Russian Academy of
Science believed that politics have no place in science, and wanted to remain out of the political
controversy.11
Graham is accounting for the rationality of the Russian Academy of Scientists towards
what they had actually said, but what they actually said may not have been the whole reason behind their
lack of cooperation. It is less likely for the Russian Academy of Science to admit that they didn’t like the
Bolshevik government because they would be paid less and equalized with the other citizens.
Complaining about their own issues is a much weaker argument then attacking the Bolshevik regime’s
place in science or the rest of society as a whole. David Joravsky mentions that mostly all the white collar
workers in the new USSR were hostile to the Bolshevik party.12
This shows how anybody who was a part
of the Bourgeois was reluctant to be equalized, but to them they were not being equalized they were being
demoted. The Bolshevik governments plan to “prolitarianize” the scientists and technical specialists were
the first example of political interference towards the Soviet scientific community leading to bad un-
organized science.
9
Bailes.44-52.
10
Ibid, 50-51. Bailes quotes Lenin talking about different strategies to sever the Bourgeois specialists from the
lower class and get them to cooperate with the communist party.
11
Graham, 83.
12
Joravsky, 63.

5. 5
This change in class structure affected many important scientists; seven out of the forty-five
members of the Russian Academy of Science had died within these transitional years from starvation
because they could not earn enough money for food.13
Some specialists even created unionized parties
who lobbied for rights such as the All Russian Union of Engineers (VSI). The (VSI) pushed for the
members of its party to not have their personal property sequestered from the Soviet government among
other issues.14
Getting the technical specialists to cooperate was one of Lenin's greatest challenges. The
problem originated in the political ideologies of communism, which pushed to equalize all citizens
regardless of their level of expertise or contribution, and was opposed by scientitific and technical
organizations academically. Lenin’s job was to find other ways besides capital gain to make the Soviet
technical specialists cooperate with Bolshevik plans of technological superiority. This eventually ended
with a frustrated Lenin shelling out rations to the technical engineers, four or five times the rations of
ordinary workers or communist supporters after the civil war had ended in 1921.15
After Lenin had died
and Stalin gained control over the right wing party in 1926, and later in 1936 gained control over the
entire Soviet government with the ironically titled “The Most Democratic Constitution in the World”.16
Stalin began to take a more violent approach to deal with the members of the Soviet scientific community
who would not conform to the communist government. Loren Graham describes Stalin’s actions by
saying he would purge all the scientists suspected of disconformity by subjecting them to political
embarrassment, imprisonment, exile, or execution.17
The previous Bolshevik government under Lenin had
a high level of political interference in science; Stalin’s government took a dramatic level of political
interference.
13
Bailes, 53.
14
Ibid, 58-60.
15
Ibid, 52.
16
Library of Congress, Soviet Union: A Country Study, Raymond E. Zickel, (Washington DC: Federal Research
Division, 1991), 66-71.
17
Graham, 121. Graham goes into detail describing how Stalin took violent action against the scientists he
suspected were not supporting the communist government.

6. 6
The Stalinist government would eventually create the ICBM, which was manipulated to become
the first space rocket in the history of the world in 1957. The role of Sergei Korolev the lead designer in
the creation of the ICBM and the space rockets made by the early Soviet space program and his
experience with the Soviet government are essential to explaining how communist ideologies have
interfered with rocket technology. Sergei Korolev began his schooling at the Higher Moscow Technical
Institution for aeromechanics in 1926.18
During his time at school the institution was distracted by
tensions between students of proletarian origin and higher class engineers who were being integrated into
one group. Korolev maintained to stay out of the political controversy, which was causing unions to be
developed and was frequently interrupting classes.19
Korolev was originally interested in aviation, and
according to his own accounts did not spark an interest in space flight until 1929 when he made contact
with Konstantin Tsilkovskii.20
Asif Siddiqi in the “Red Rockets’ Glare” claims the Soviet Union had built
an underground culture of space enthusiasts centered on the works of Konstantin Tsiolkovskii published
in (1903).21
These papers outlined how spaceflight was mathematically possible using liquid propellant
rockets before airplanes even existed. Korolev had been a member of space rocket enthusiasts who
formed organizations that built liquid propellant rockets first GIRD and then later RN2 from 1932 to 1938
where Korolev was the Chief rocket designer.22
In 1938 following the series of scientific purges by Stalin
after he had gained a dictatorship over the Soviet Union in 1936; Korolev was arrested and exiled in
Siberia.23
Stalin’s purge of technical specialists and scientists had originated from Soviet ideologies, yet
wasn’t explicitly stated in any communist literature. Part of the goals behind Stalin’s violent actions had
18
Asif Siddiqi, The Red Rockets’ Glare: Spaceflight and the Soviet Imagination 1857-1957, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010), 121.
19
Ibid, 121-122.
20
Ibid, 122. Siddiqi claims that was Korolev’s reason for becoming a space enthusiast, but argues against that
reason claiming he made it up to get political support.
21
Ibid,2.
22
Ibid, 138.
23
Ibid, 155-156.

7. 7
been to “Proliterianize” the bourgeois specialists24
, which correlates to Communist ideals of a classless
society. These actions had caused the future leading engineer behind the original space rocket exiled and
separated from the laboratory along with many other Bourgeois scientists and engineers. Historian Asif
Siddiqi claims Soviet and Western historians have stated that the Soviet Union most likely would have
made rockets comparable to the German V-2 had the great purges not have occurred.25
After the dust had settled from World War 2 the Cold War began between the Soviet Union and
America, which was an ideological struggle between the American Capitalists and the Soviet
Communists for world supremacy and political control. The contrasting ideologies between nations and
the threat of the nuclear bomb first used in World War 2 by the Americans caused a tension between the
Soviet Union and the Americans. Under these conditions both countries found it necessary to create the
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which was made to be capable of transferring a nuclear bomb
across the Atlantic Ocean. The original space rockets were modifications of ICBM’s. The Soviet Union
was the first nation to reach space with the launch of Sputnik, which was a satellite of very simple
technology. This was a great success the Soviets had been the first nation into space and had beaten the
United States to it. Siddiqi argues that Soviet scientific historians have avoided talking about the space
program for two reasons. First because their interests are in exposing how Soviet ideologies have
interfered with science and this was an example where the state had helped out the space program.
Second they were more focused on the natural and physical sciences and not technology.26
This seemingly
contradicts my argument pertaining to state ideologies interfering with rocket technology, but after
reviewing what I have already stated in relation to my thesis it is not quite so clear. Mostly all of the lead
24
Bailes, In the Chapter Cultural Revolution and the Creation of A New Technical Intelligentsia Bailes discusses
Stalin’s goals of turning the technical specialists into members of the proletariat. Also Communist ideologies led to
an increased need for cooperation among scientists. Stalin’s need to take violent action to force people to
cooperate originated in Communist ideologies reliant on cooperation with state motives.
25
Ibid, 193. The power difference between the German V2 and the Soviet Union’s best missile was 25 tons of
thrust to 1.5 tons Siddiqi notes this on page 224 of the same book.
26
Ibid, 6.

8. 8
engineers behind the building of the R7 rocket ship had dealt with an extreme level of political
interference leading up to the launch of the rocket much the same as Korolev. If they had been left alone
to work they would have made more advances toward rocket technology considering how dedicated they
were to the cause. Of course there was less political intervention at the time of the Soviet space era then
before it. At the time of the space era Soviet Ideologies of central planning had detracted from the
program’s success. I am not arguing that Communism did not help the space program, because it did.
Communist Ideologies had brought a once struggling empire into the world’s elite in industrialization.
The Soviet Union would have never had the wealth to build anything like this without their revolutionary
Communist ideologies. My argument however is that American ideologies of Capitalism are a better
environment for technology to progress. Both ideologies have similar goals of industrialization and
modernization, yet Capitalism is better at achieving this, and was able to overshadow the Soviet Union’s
original success.
In 1958 the United States was a free market Capitalist Democracy under the guidance of a
different philosopher not Karl Marx, but a Scottish philosopher Adam Smith. Who wrote “A Wealth of
Nations” written in 177627
consequently the same year the United States gained independence from
Britain. The writings in “A Wealth of Nations” gave the United States an ideological discourse to follow
and live by.28
Thomas Petit wrote a book about American ideologies of freedom in the American
economy, and cited Capitalist ideologies combined with American ideologies of freedom had led to the
adoption of free market capitalism.29
The ideologies of free market Capitalism served as the reason why
the United States was able to have a more advanced repertoire of space technology to that of the Soviets;
27
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Edited by Jim Manis, Electronic
Classics Series, ONLINE. Available at: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf
28
Thomas A. Petit, Freedom in the American Economy, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1964), 92-93. Petit
talks about Adam Smith having an effect on the United States capitalist views of freedom, without government
interference.
29
Ibid, 91. Petit is arguing that ideals of freedom and capitalism merged together to shape American Economic
Policy.

9. 9
thus culminating in the Americans being able to land human beings on the moon first. American
Economic Ideologies allowed American industry to have competition between many autonomous
engineering organizations30
, and were characterized by free markets. The structure of the United States
economy minimized barriers to entry, and made it easy for new companies to enter existing markets.
Clauses in the United States congress prevented the existence of monopolies31
, so more companies could
enter existing markets creating more competition. Competition between competing organizations is better
for increasing the quality of technology.
These ideologies could be put to work with the creation of a bill called the “National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958”32
, which created a civilian agency in charge of managing the space
program; the agency would be called NASA. This act gave the administrator of NASA the power to
gather institutions at his discretion to work towards the advance of space flight technology. The
administrator of NASA would be responsible for contracting organizations and people to do work under
NASA, and not everybody who did work for NASA would necessarily be a part of the organization. This
approach allowed NASA to employ a wide variety of experts and approaches to advancing outer space
technology. The “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958” gave NASA the jurisdiction to take
precedence over other government funded institutions. Section 203-6 in this treaty displays how NASA
had grounds for cooperation from outside institutions.
to use, with their consent, the services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of
Federal and other agencies with or without reimbursement, and on a similar basis to
cooperate with other public and private agencies and instrumentalities in the use of
services, equipment and facilities. Each department and agency of the Federal
Government shall cooperate fully with the Administration in making its services,
equipment, personnel, and facilities available to the Administration, and any such
department or agency is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to
30
Ibid, 242. Petit defined American Capatilism to have many autonomous competing organizations. I related this to
engineering because the same principals of the market were applied to engineering organizations.
31
James S. Olsen, Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in America, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002), 52.
32
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-568, 72 Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958), ONLINE,
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

10. 10
transfer or to receive from the Administration, without reimbursement, aeronautical and
space vehicles, and supplies and equipment other than administrative supplies and
equipment.33
The structure of NASA allowed for competition between private companies that were being
employed under the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958” which was funded by the government.
This structure of management served much more effective to advancing technology than what the Soviet
Union was doing. Soviet Ideologies concerning government control over the production of technology
had led to the slowed production of technology leading to the Soviet Union not being able to keep up with
the United States. The basis for this mis-management was outlined in the Communist Manifesto written
by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Marx states in the Communist Manifesto “The proletariat will use its
political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase
the total productive forces as rapidly as possible”.34
Directly after this statement in the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels lay out ten characteristics that every Communist country should strive for,
and they were heavily centered towards centralized government control.35
Centralized government control
to the Soviets shaped their space program to be much narrower then the United States.
The Soviet Union’s success in space up to 1961 had been under the guidance of the lead rocket
engineer Korolev and his associate engine designer Glushko. These two men had used rockets to send a
satellite into orbit and a man into space before the Americans. In 1960 the Soviet Union began to go in a
different direction by contracting other organizations to manufacture other types of space technology.
Mainly Chelomey who lead a design bureau that worked for the army producing missiles, and proposed
plans to make a space plane.36
The development of the raketoplan (space plane) was taking away funding
33
Ibid, 9.
34
Marx and Engels, 26.
35
Ibid, 26.
36
Asif Siddiqi, Sputnik and The Soviet Space Challenge, (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003), 299-302.
Siddiqi goes over how Chelomey and his design bureau started contracts with the Soviet Space Program.

11. 11
from other projects like the ones Korolev had planned, as opposed to simply prioritizing multiple projects.
A member from OKB-1 Korolev’s design bureau recalled that a significant portion of the funding for
OKB-1’s deep space program had been given to Chelomey’s design bureau.37
The whole space program
was managed under the typical central planning model characteristic of the Soviet Union. This type of
model made little room for competition and support of differing approaches, and the Soviet Union was
hard pressed to stray away from Korolev who had given them bragging rights of national prestige.
Chelomey’s Raketoplan funding was cut short, and was not given a very large window of opportunity to
succeed; the Soviet Union would not prioritize both projects. The Soviet Union administrative staff had
found it very difficult to fully trust anybody besides Korolev to create rocket ships. General Kamanin who
was in charge of cosmonaut training within the space program is quoted as saying.
For the present it's not even on paper, although we've been assured that the Draft Plan
[will be ready] by February. Chelomey has already had a long two years to work on this
theme, and in ]anuary 1961 when we were there with the Gommander-in-Chief—then he
made many promises--but nothing that _as promised has been carried out. The real space
ships in the future 3-5 years will be Korolev's ships, and only his--all the rest are unlikely
to advance outside the bounds of experimentation.38
This quote displays an example of an influential member of the Soviet Union’s space program
general attitude to go with what works and are very distrusting of anybody who has not proven
themselves. In other words they don’t like competition and favor cooperation with whatever the state
goals may be. The most competition occurred between competing engineers and their differing opinions
because only one group of them would be able to build something at a time in most cases. Proposals from
engineers were heavily based on appeasing the goals of the Communist government. Decisions about the
space program would be made at meetings like the ones held in February 1962. In these meetings high
ranking officials including President Khrushchev would listen to presentations from engineers and decide
37
Ibid, 309. The comments from this member of Korolev’s design bureau were cited by Siddiqi as Boris
Arkadyevich Dorofeyev, "History of the Development of the N I L3 Moon Program" (English title),
presented at the 10th International Symposium on the History of Astronautics and Aeronautics, Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia. June 20-27, 1995.
38
Ibid, 312. Siddiqi received this quote from General Kamamin’s diary, Kamanin, Skrytiy kosmos, p 211.

12. 12
what project will receive funding.39
The meetings served as a battleground between engineers and even
ended in an argument between Glushko and Korolev in front of high ranking officials involved in the
space program.40
The Soviet Union administration would select one idea and let engineers argue over
what to do to see who could make the most convincing case, instead of selecting a few different
organizations and funding different projects like NASA. This type of management is indicative of Soviet
style central planning that would interview different people and select only one idea and go full steam
ahead with that one idea. The project lead officials in the Soviet space program decided on was using N1
boosters.41
The plans for the boosters would be argued about by various engineers that the Soviet Union
department of defense had appointed to deliver a presentation. This is characterized by the Soviet defense
department in collaboration with high ranking officials having most of the control over what gets done,
and not working with the engineering organizations themselves. Siddiqi claims that the Soviet Union
planned flights according to what vehicles had been produced in OKB-1’s production plant in 1962.42
This shows the Soviet Union’s unwillingness to try and produce any projects that weren’t already proven
to work. This is the basis of Soviet Centralized planning; they select one organization and have that
organization build a desired amount of whatever they were producing. At the time there were proposals
for a number of projects such as nuclear powered rockets, space stations, and a manned space flight to
mars; none of these ideas progressed.43
In that same year (1962) the United States had been funding multiple space projects under
NASA. The first project was called Ranger, which was an unmanned mission to fly around the moon and
39
Ibid, 322-324.
40
Ibid, 323.
41
Ibid, 325.
42
Ibid, 351.
43
Ibid, Chapter 8 entitled “Looking to the Future” Siddiqi in this chapter outlines engineer’s plans of executing
different missions that never made it past the planning stage; the ideas above are some examples.

13. 13
take pictures of the far side of the moon.44
At the same time the United States was also funding the
Mariner 2 project to observe Venus45
, and contracting organizations to work on the problem of landing an
astronaut on the moon. Landing a man on the moon was eventually a common goal of both the Soviet
Union and the United States. At this point it seemed very bleak as the Soviet Union had been the first to
every major milestone in space flight. NASA’s talks about landing on the moon were initiated during a
meeting with President Kennedy and James Webb the current NASA administrator on November 20th
1962.46
During those talks James Webb provided an estimate as to when the United States would be able
to land a man on the moon and how much it would cost. Webb estimated sometime in between 1967-
1968, and the cost for the entire project would be around 400 million dollars in total.47
During the meeting
James Webb made an excellent point in terms of how to fund these types of missions. As the
administrator he would look over the proposals of engineering organizations and then determine from
what the contracting organization is proposing; how much money will be allocated to their project. James
Webb claims the cost estimates to how much funding engineering organizations will receive is a continual
process and not a set number.48
The planning process is a joint effort between the administration and the
engineers unlike the Soviet Union. Drawing back to the previous comment about how the Soviet Union
was planning missions according to how many launch vehicles were coming off OKB-1’s production
plant. I can discern that the United States was being very methodical in planning missions while the
Soviet Union was not planning as much as they were just working with what they had. The Soviet
Union’s centralized planning model would only allow for what the design bureau could imagine and
44
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology, Space Programs Summary No. 37-14, ONLINE. 1962.
Available: https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19620002172
45
Ibid.
46
Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House between John F. Kennedy and James
Webb, November 21, 1962, Tape #63, Supplemental Appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), ONLINE. Available: http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf
47
Ibid, 1.
48
Ibid, 2.

14. 14
convince the Soviet government to fund. The Communist government was not working with the engineers
like the United States. The engineers in the Soviet Union were working to please the contractors. The
engineers in the United States were focused on working with the contractors to get the job done properly.
This was indicative of free market Capitalism as the workers were contracted by NASA, and were
mutually interested in making a profit out of the work they were assigned to accomplish.
The moon landing was a very complicated mission and would take rigorous planning from a
multitude of specialists and administrative staff to monitor the cost and feasibility. The existence of
engineering organizations in the United States was based on if there was a market for their product. Under
the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958” these pre-existing organizations could be put to use.
This meant that any related engineering organizations that produced technology similar to what NASA
was looking for could be contracted by them. The number of organizations with relatable technology was
higher than the Soviet Union because the Americans were creating technology at the demands of the open
market and not the government; until they were contracted by NASA. This led to more specialization,
which is a corner stone of Capitalism outlined in “A Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith49
. With low
barriers to entry into new markets any organization selling technology could manufacture new inventions
and have a use created for it as long as people would buy it. The companies contracted were affiliated
with military contracting as well, since America had a military-industrial complex, which means that the
private sector provides weapons to the government. The private sector is composed of lay citizens who set
up business to make a profit for themselves and enter into a competitive market. During world war two
private companies such as General Motors, Boeing Airplane Co, General Electric, and North American
Aviation were contracted and received money to do work for the United States Army.50
An example of a
civilian organization that made major contributions to NASA was IBM. Originally IBM was a type writer
49
Smith, Chapter one “On the Division of Labor” In this chapter Smith philosophizes that increased specialization of
tasks of labor leads to increased skill and productivity.
50
Merton J. Peck, The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis, (Boston: Harvard University, 1962),
613.

15. 15
company, which was eventually contracted to do work for the army, and later the space program. IBM
computers were used to land the first humans onto the moon in Apollo 11. In 1966 IBM built the System
360 which was used by NASA in the moon landing.51
Not only was the computer used for NASA, but
served a multitude of other purposes such as performing simple desk calculations, a coordinate geometry
package, a book keeping analysis, and many other functions.52
This shows how a privately owned
company arising through a competitive market could create superior technology that could be used by
NASA as well as serve a variety of other uses available to the public market. At the time the System 360
were the fastest most powerful computers in user operation according to IBM.53
The United States
employed this technology during the moon landing. The Soviet Union could not employ this type of
technology because there was no competitive market for computer technology.
In 1964 the Soviet Union were also preparing for a moon landing. The Soviet Union unlike the
Americans did not have the option of contracting many organizations with specialized technology such as
IBM. There Communist ideologies had caused them to centralize all space and missile technology to the
Ministry of General Machine building (MOM).54
This centralization of space technology left out key
pieces of the Soviet electronics division resulting in one leading administrator to comment.
. . With respect to rocket-space radio electronics we quickly fell behind since
microelectronics and radio-electronic technology remained outside of the influence of the
MOM, instead remaining within the [Ministry of Radio Industry] and [Ministry o/
Electronics Industry] .... .as a result, it was a great inconvenience to satisfy the MOM's
Demands for modern electronic equipment, and ultimately our [country's] space radio
electronic technology began to lag behind that of the Americans in terms of development
51
IBM 100, The Apollo Missions, ONLINE. Available: http://www-
03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/apollo/
52
IBM Research, APL/360, ONLINE. March 1967. Available:
https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmaplAPL367_756400 this document entails the uses for and technical
information of the system 360 computer in 1967.
53
IBM archives, “System/360 Model 91”, ONLINE. Available: http://www-
03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2091.html
54
Ibid, 428-429.

16. 16
periods, quality, and general scientific-technical level.55
The Soviet Union at this point was clearly at a disadvantage there centralized approach to
Organizing the production of technology was causing them to fall behind the United States. From this
point it was clear to the Soviet Union and the United States who had the best means of technological
production. This technological gap eventually ended with Americans landing a man on the moon on July
21st
1969, with the words one small step for man, and one giant leap for mankind heard around the world
from astronaut Neil Armstrong.
At the end of the “space race” lasting just over a decade it was the Americans who emerged as the
winners. It is clear that political-economic systems played an influential role on the production and
advancement of technology in this case. The contrast between Capitalist and Communist ideologies had
led to different approaches to space flight technology between the Soviet Union and America. Capitalist
ideologies served as a better environment for allowing technology to progress. Communist ideologies
frequently interfere with the production of technology, and minimalize competition in industry leading to
decreased specialization. Specialization was very important in landing people onto the moon and
returning them safely because of the complexity of the mission. Free market Capitalism allowed for the
advancement of technology from an increased number of firms competing to make the best type of
technology to be awarded contracts for their work. From this perspective Neil Armstrong’s first step on
the lunar surface was one small step for man, and one giant leap for American Free Market Capitalist
ideologies.
55
Ibid, 429. Siddiqi obtained this information through Yu, A. Mozzhorin, e! aL, eds.. Nachalo kosmieheskoy ery:
uospominamya veteranov raketno-kosmicheskoy tekhniki i kosmonautiki, vypusk vtoroy (Moscow: RNITsKD, 1994).
p. 288.

17. 17
Bibliography
Bailes, Kendall. Technology and society under Lenin and Stalin origins of the Soviet
technical intelligentsia, 1917-1941, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978.
Graham, Loren. Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
IBM 100, The Apollo Missions, ONLINE. Available:
http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/apollo/
IBM archives, “System/360 Model 91”, ONLINE. Available: http://www-
03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2091.html
IBM Research, APL/360, ONLINE. March 1967. Available:
https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmaplAPL367_756400
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology, Space Programs Summary
No. 37-14, ONLINE. 1962. Available: https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19620002172
Joravsky, David, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1961.
Library of Congress. Soviet Union: A Country Study, Raymond E. Zickel, Washington
DC: Federal Research Division, 1991.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Fredrick. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Marxists.org, Vol
1,February 1848.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-568, 72
Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958), ONLINE, http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf
Olsen James. Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in America, Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 2002.
Peck, Merton. The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis, Boston:
Harvard University, 1962

18. 18
Petit, Thomas. Freedom in the American Economy, Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, 1964.
Siddiqi, Asif. Sputnik and The Soviet Space Challenge, Gainesville: University Press of
Florida, 2003.
Siddiqi, Asif. The Red Rockets’ Glare: Spaceflight and the Soviet Imagination 1857-
1957, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Smith, Adam. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” Edited
by Jim Manis, Electronic Classics Series, ONLINE. Available at:
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf
Transcript of Presidential Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House between
John F. Kennedy and James Webb, November 21, 1962, Tape #63, Supplemental Appropriations
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), ONLINE. Available:
http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf