​Is communism good for engineering?

Or: Do you understand what you are missing out on, Comrade?

In this article I am going to write about instances when, thanks to communist governments, engineers were able to achieve remarkable things, enjoy ample employment of opportunities on exciting projects, and contribute to the general pool of engineering knowledge.
The reason for this is to explore how engineering success, at times, can be a result of external factors more than engineering talent. Further, it will help you understand how factors such as politics, economics and national nuances can influence engineering expectations and practices. This will help you in two ways. First, it will help you better understand the inherent tendencies of engineers from other regions who you might work with. Second, it will help you better adapt to new workplaces with different degrees of public ownership and influence.
So let’s start this off by considering some of the engineering-related success from communist places.

• High-Speed Rail Network in China: A network stretching over 45,000 kilometres.
• Moscow Canal in the U.S.S.R.: Linked the Moscow River to the upper Volga River, providing water and turning Moscow into a functional deep-water port.
• Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge: A system of bridges and undersea tunnels spanning 55 kilometres across the Pearl River Delta.
• Shenzhen–Zhongshan Link in China: A 24-kilometer combination of bridges, artificial islands, and underwater tunnels connecting major hubs in the Greater Bay Area.
• Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S.S.R.: Launched the world’s first grid-connected nuclear power station in June 1954.
• The FAST Telescope (Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope) in China: The world’s largest single-dish radio telescope, built into a natural basin in Guizhou province.
• Sputnik from the U.S.S.R.: The first artificial satellite.
• JUNO (Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory) in China: A massive underground neutrino detector housed in a giant acrylic sphere submerged in high-purity liquid.
• The Vostok 1 spacecraft from the U.S.S.R.: Took the first person, Yuri Gagarin, into space.
• The EV industry in China: accounts for 75% of the world’s production and was developed after a state directive in 2009 (17 years ago)

The first thing that is clear about this list is that all items are from the U.S.S.R. and China. There would be other examples, but I have, in that list, stuck with those countries that are most obvious as being communist to the average reader.
What strikes me about the above, and maybe you too, is that each item is more impressive when you consider the economics of the broader population. China has a GDP per capita that is about one sixth that of most developed western countries (factoring in purchasing power, it is about one third to one half). In its time, the U.S.S.R. experienced similar relative levels of wealth.
It is hard to imagine how in other countries with similar levels of wealth such projects could succeed.
Therefore, if you were an engineer in such a country, especially if you gained employment in one of these projects, then you would be glad of the government’s actions. And you might think that communism is good for engineers.
So how is communism good for engineers?
Communism essentially has a command economy. Ideas and businesses do not succeed because there is a market that is prepared to pay for them – the demand economy. Instead, it all comes down to the government demanding what will be done. If the government decides that a space program is needed, then a space agency is set up and engineers are put to work making rockets. If the government decides it wants a high-speed rail line from one end of the country to another, then engineers are now laying tracks, building trains and building power infrastructure. There is no need to wait or hope for the fickle market to demand what you can do – it simply happens.
That can be the attraction engineers have to communism at times.
What this means for the global engineer.
If you spent many years working in a command economy, then you might find you need to put effort into remaining mindful of commercial demands and realities if you work in a capitalist economy. And the opposite can be true if you move in the other direction – you might waste your time thinking about commercial realities instead of just getting the project done.
There can also be benefits.
Someone from a communist economy has potentially built a lot of knowledge in a field because it was so well funded that they could keep working in it. Funding that would not be available when a company needs to worry about income, expenses and profits in a capitalist context. Also, someone from a capitalist background could be ideal to ensure that the end users are better considered, for a more useful and beneficial outcome, than would someone who has become accustomed to only worrying about the broader goals laid out by the government – The Tu-144 (the Soviet equivalent of the Concorde), with its reliability issues, high cabin noise, and environmental concerns, comes to mind.
So, is communism good for engineering? It certainly sems it can be at times. A command economy can direct resources toward large technical goals in a way that free markets often would not, and that can give engineers remarkable opportunities. Regardless of what economy you are in though, as a global engineer, consider how that economy could affect:

1. the expertise you can develop (or have developed), and
2. your tendency to factor in broader commercial effects

relative to those working in a different economy. This will help you appreciate your own skills, opportunities to develop further, and make transitions from one region to another much smoother.