In the early 1960s, a Soviet mathematician and cyberneticist named Viktor Glushkov floated a remarkable idea. He proposed that the Soviet Union build a nationwide computer network that would manage and automate the entire economy in real time. Known as OGAS, obshche-gosudarstvennaya avtomatizirovannaya sistema (National Automated System for Computation and Information Processing), it was one of the most ambitious cybernetic projects ever conceived, several years ahead of competing networks like the ARPANET and what would later become the internet.
The proposed logo of OGAS.
The proposal to create a computer network for economic management was first made by the Soviet engineer and Colonel Anatolii Kitov. He believed that computers could solve one of the Soviet system’s most persistent problems, which was the inefficiency of central planning. The Soviet economy relied on vast quantities of data, ranging from production figures, resource allocations, and labour statistics, but this information moved slowly through layers of bureaucracy.
Kitov proposed first to install computers at several large factories and government agencies, then to link them together to form ‘large complexes,’ or networks, and ultimately to create a ‘unified automated management system’ for the national economy.
Kitov suggested that these measures would lead to a significant reduction in administrative and management staff and even to the elimination of certain government agencies. He realized that potential personnel cuts would cause friction, and suggested that a new powerful agency be created to implement the automation and reorganization of work in all government institutions. The computerization of economic management, he argued, would make it possible to use to the full extent the main economic advantages of the socialist system, which was planned economy and centralized control. The creation of an automated management system would mean a revolutionary leap in the development of the country and would ensure a complete victory of socialism over capitalism.
Glushkov (seated first on the right) at the Computing Center of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Soviet leadership took Kitov’s proposal seriously, but the organization reforms it demanded made them step back. In the end, some specialized computers for economic analysis, statistics, and planning were built but the nationwide computer network and an automated management system for the entire economy never came to fruition.
In 1962, Viktor Glushkov, who was familiar with Kitov’s ideas, presented a new proposal to build an automated system for economic planning and management on the basis of a nationwide computer network. Glushkov proposed a hierarchical network of computer centers spread across the Soviet Union, connected through communication lines. At the top would be a central hub in Moscow, linked to regional centers, which in turn would connect to thousands of local terminals in factories and enterprises. These nodes would continuously collect and transmit economic data, allowing planners to monitor production, adjust targets, and allocate resources dynamically.
In essence, OGAS was an attempt to create a real-time, computer-driven command economy. It drew on the principles of cybernetics, a field that examines how systems regulate themselves through feedback. Though cybernetics had initially been dismissed in the Soviet Union as a “bourgeois pseudoscience,” it was rehabilitated in the late 1950s and quickly embraced by reform-minded scientists and economists.
Schematic of the technological foundation of the OGAS project from the declassified CIA report Summary of Soviet Digital Switching, June 1986. Credit: DataArt
The proposed network was extraordinarily sophisticated for its time. Glushkov envisioned not only data processing but also electronic payments, digital record-keeping, and even a form of paperless money, concepts that would not become widespread until decades later. In many ways, OGAS anticipated elements of modern digital infrastructure, from distributed computing to online financial systems.
Despite its promise, OGAS was never fully realized. The reasons for its failure lay less in technology than in politics and institutional resistance. Various government ministries saw the project as a threat to their authority. A centralized data network would reduce their control over information and even make certain institutions redundant. The Soviet bureaucracy resisted any reform that threatened to upset the established balance of power.
There were also practical challenges. Building such a network required enormous investment in computing hardware, telecommunications infrastructure, and trained personnel, resources that were scarce in the Soviet Union at the time.
Some critics claimed that Glushkov’s project would divert resources urgently needed for economic reform. One economist wrote that the construction of the pyramids of Egypt was “one of the reasons why that fertile ancient country turned into a desert. If one vigorously implements a meaningless economic decision, this ruins the economy. According to the blueprint of a unified state network of computer centers, these centers would spread over this country like those pyramids, designed by talented mathematicians and able engineers with the participation of unqualified economists.”
Victor Glushkov
The biggest problem with Glushkov’s plan was that it would work only if introduced in full. Without a radical management reform on the top, local optimization lost its meaning. One factory manager offered a frank explanation: “I cannot reallocate portions of the salary fund; it comes with a state order. This fund is greater for the production of narrow pipes. If you reassign the orders, this would upset the stability of this fund. To accept your proposal, the entire management system would have to be reformed.”
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, OGAS had been scaled back significantly. While some regional and sectoral computer systems were implemented, the grand vision of a unified national network faded. Glushkov continued to advocate for the project until his death in 1982, but the political will to carry it through never materialized.
Gluskov’s frustration was palpable in this essay he wrote in the magazine Technology to the Youth! shortly before his death:
Scarce goods and expensive commodities such as cars, furniture, country houses, etc., could be sold only through special marketplaces and paid solely with a bank transaction. And now try to imagine how swindlers and all kinds of thieving people will feel about it, all those looking for holes in the system to profit themselves through others' efforts. What would they pursue their gray entrepreneurship for? A couple of radishes or an ice cream cone? I cannot presume they would be satisfied with that.
Moreover, citizens of such a city may decide that fancy dining out or liquor should also be paid through the banking system. It should disrupt the existence of those who are offering services for alcohol as a gift (in the USSR, strong liquor sometimes served as currency).
Perhaps, not instantly, but someday, citizens will have a whole set of needed services. There would be a system with cinema, theatre, concert announcements, train and airline timetables. All the tickets would be booked at the same service platform, and of course, they could also be paid at the same place via wire transfer, and such a booking would have a higher priority than cash.
Citizens of this town of tomorrow will not need to waste their time on all these minor issues that consume nearly all of our spare time, and there will not be pointless stress.
References:
# Slava Gerovitch. InterNyet: why the Soviet Union did not build a nationwide computer network
# Benjamin Peters. Why the Soviet Internet Failed
# OGAS: The Red Bit System. DataArt
Comments
Post a Comment