NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that the advanced techology that exists today, such as computers, etc, would have ever been developed without the incentive of capitalism?

I think that technology would not be very advanced if the world was communist (and when I say that I mean more the Marxist version than the Stalin version), but to its merit the existing benefits of technology would be spread out more fairly throughout the world.

*prepares to be called "capitalist pig-dog" by the left*
*prepares to be called "leftist traitor" by the right*

Unfortunately, political sytems have never advanced technology, war has.

Unfortunately, Political sytems have never advanced technology, war has.
True, technology has been advanced in the interests of the military-industrial complex, but I believe that in peacetime advances can be made. War is profitable for some, but peace can also be profitable.

Do you think that the advanced techology that exists today, such as computers, etc, would have ever been developed without the incentive of capitalism?

I think that technology would not be very advanced if the world was communist (and when I say that I mean more the Marxist version than the Stalin version), but to its merit the existing benefits of technology would be spread out more fairly throughout the world.

And what if one believes that Stalin was the natural consequence of Marx's idea put into practise (albeit, maybe not so extreme)?

Do you think that the advanced techology that exists today, such as computers, etc, would have ever been developed without the incentive of capitalism?

I think that technology would not be very advanced if the world was communist (and when I say that I mean more the Marxist version than the Stalin version), but to its merit the existing benefits of technology would be spread out more fairly throughout the world.

*prepares to be called "capitalist pig-dog" by the left*
*prepares to be called "leftist traitor" by the right*
well, all i know is that any discoveries i might make in my lifetime would be kept secret (as opposed to being shared with the world) if i were forced to live in a communist system. of course, i've yet to make any major discoveries or inventions, and i don't know that i ever will, so that might not be any loss to the world :).

Yes it would exist, tech would be something like Red Alert 2. ;D

But it prob wouldn't be alot different, might have the odd hammer and sickle sign on everything (since it would be made by the state). It however may not be in such a widely spread form as it is today, more likely the rich would be the only ones allowed and who could afford a computer or any other piece of technology which we take for granted.

No. Socialism/Marxism provides no incentives for the advancement of technology. In a perfect Socialist/marxist society, technological development would be a virtual standstill, and progress would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Only through competition would we advance without war, and in Socialism, competition is non-existent.

But it prob wouldn't be alot different, might have the odd hammer and sickle sign on everything (since it would be made by the state). It however may not be in such a widely spread form as it is today, more likely the rich would be the only ones allowed and who could afford a computer or any other piece of technology which we take for granted.
I am deeply confused here.
What rich?
This is communism we're talking about, I had thought...

It would depend. If the State/People decided there was a case for going to Mars, we'd probably be there already. If they on the other hand decided new, more fashionable chairs were the order of the day, then that's what we'd get. Communism (In it's ideal form) depends far too much on the direct democratic influence of the people; and what if the people are stupid or easily lead, and don't think Magnetic Resonance Imaging would yield enough results to be worth the effort?

Assuming an ideal communist state, I think there would be an overabundance of agricultural and transportation technology, and that we probably wouldn't have as many weapons of war.

We'd be flitting around in our space pods, treated lavishly by our robot servants, and "working" only 1 hour per day by plugging in to the collective mind. :p

I am deeply confused here.
What rich?
This is communism we're talking about, I had thought...

So you are under the impression that everyone, including those running the Government, would make the same amount? This is the main problem with Socialism/Communism societies. The only ones with money are the ones running the Government. Atleast in a Capitialist society you have many more people with money than those in office.

Forgot to make my point about the orginal question.

I think if Communism ruled the world we would be stuck in pre-1950's Tech. Meaning no Computers, no cell phones, no internet, no satillite dishes, cable tv etc. Basically everything we love today would be gone.

I am deeply confused here.
What rich?
This is communism we're talking about, I had thought...

Well...if your talking about proper communism (sorry I thought you meant in the sense of Soviet Russia) then there would be no rich of course, but again technology would be restricted by the government greatly.

Well...if your talking about proper communism (sorry I thought you meant in the sense of Soviet Russia) then there would be no rich of course, but again technology would be restricted by the government greatly.
I specifically said that I was talking about Marxist communism, not Stalinism, when I started the thread. Read posts before responding to them.

Well, I think that if the primary motivator was social needs as opposed to the needs of private power some of the advances would include:

a LOT of emphasis on vaccines and preventative health care like community clinics careful diet counselling and close examination of environmental causes of illness... Like in Cuba

Automotive: I think the cars would have developed towards greater fuel efficiency and minimal material inputs... furthermore, public transit would be extensive and accessible

Aeronautics?... No one NEEDS to travel that far that fast, if you had the 12 weeks vacation sweden has, you could take the TRAIN wherever you wanted to go, transferring to boats whenever you needed, much more fuel efficient than airplanes, just less time efficient

So you are under the impression that everyone, including those running the Government, would make the same amount?
No, I am under the impression that no one would make any money at all, because there wouldn't be any.

Theoretically technology will inevitably create a type of Communist born from the ashes of Capitalism, it still has some time to go.

As was previously said, war has a way of drastically speeding up technological advancement. Lord only knows how far behind we would be at the moment had WWII and the Cold War never happened. Also, considering Communism kinda is based on obliterating personal ambition, progress would slow to a crawl (admittedly the benefit would be evenly distributed.) Another point is that never in our history (and most likely never in our future) has a single government ruled the world. Singular rule would also completely destroy national competition, slowing progress even more.

Not a pretty picture really.

No. Socialism/Marxism provides no incentives for the advancement of technology. In a perfect Socialist/marxist society, technological development would be a virtual standstill, and progress would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Only through competition would we advance without war, and in Socialism, competition is non-existent.

You forget that humans have an inherent curiousity and a desire to creatively express themselves. Just because the profit motive is removed doesn't mean people regress to a vegetative state. However the inventions would tend to have a more social tendency than militant tendency.

No, I am under the impression that no one would make any money at all, because there wouldn't be any.

Oh good point, just had to make sure though never can tell what one is thinking.

Technology would probably have the same, or greater, lever of advancement, but it would take a different form. First of all, It depends on thr decade in which the world became communist. But I would imagine that technology would be more spread out (Better farming, factories, etc.). I don't think weaponry or space exploration would have need to advance as much if the entire world was more united under a single form of government.

Theoretically technology will inevitably create a type of Communist born from the ashes of Capitalism, it still has some time to go.

As was previously said, war has a way of drastically speeding up technological advancement. Lord only knows how far behind we would be at the moment had WWII and the Cold War never happened. Also, considering Communism kinda is based on obliterating personal ambition, progress would slow to a crawl (admittedly the benefit would be evenly distributed.) Another point is that never in our history (and most likely never in our future) has a single government ruled the world. Singular rule would also completely destroy national competition, slowing progress even more.

Not a pretty picture really.

So if millions of people hadn't of given up their lives I wouldn't be typing on this computer now? That was really nice of them to do that for me..... Oh, wait no one asked them. This is an even uglier picture than the one you painted.

So if millions of people hadn't of given up their lives I wouldn't be typing on this computer now? That was really nice of them to do that for me..... Oh, wait no one asked them. This is an even uglier picture than the one you painted.
whether or not you think it's a fair price to pay, the simple fact is that war usually leads to leaps in technology. the question being asked was what technology would be like, not whether the world as a whole would be better off.

So if millions of people hadn't of given up their lives I wouldn't be typing on this computer now? That was really nice of them to do that for me..... Oh, wait no one asked them. This is an even uglier picture than the one you painted.

All things considered, no you probably wouldn't be typing on the computer. Especially not on Nation States.

The largest problem with communism is that it suppresses ideas. Therefore it cannot compete with capitlaism. The only thing they can hope to do is steal iddeads from capitalist countries.

whether or not you think it's a fair price to pay, the simple fact is that war usually leads to leaps in technology. the question being asked was what technology would be like, not whether the world as a whole would be better off.

So why don't you lead by example and explore what you think technology would be like in an ideal Marxist state?

You are absolutely correct when you state that war accelerates war making technologies. That's because governments provide massive subsidies to high tech R&D in the form of defence contracts. The nifty thing about this is that the risk is completely removed from research. The corporation profits whether the research is successful or not!! Even better, if the technology is successful the corporation, not the agent that paid for it (the government) owns it. Now the corp can sell this technology back to people - a second time. Protected by patents corporations get to profit twice, once through direct tax subsidies second through sales to the public (wealthy public first).


NOW, the point of all this Marxist visualizing is to ask, IN AN IDEAL Marxist state, what technologies would be recieving the subsidies? Remember, Soviets would be free to approve or disapprove subsidies to the project, so each advance would have to have either a) a demonstrative social benefit or b) satisfy an area of valued knowledge.

Depends on how many wars we'd have.

The more wars, the better our technology and economy.

The less, the worse.

So why don't you lead by example and explore what you think technology would be like in an ideal Marxist state?

um, i replied to the topic already.


You are absolutely correct when you state that war accelerates war making technologies. That's because governments provide massive subsidies to high tech R&D in the form of defence contracts. The nifty thing about this is that the risk is completely removed from research. The corporation profits whether the research is successful or not!! Even better, if the technology is successful the corporation, not the agent that paid for it (the government) owns it. Now the corp can sell this technology back to people - a second time. Protected by patents corporations get to profit twice, once through direct tax subsidies second through sales to the public (wealthy public first).

okay.


NOW, the point of all this Marxist visualizing is to ask, IN AN IDEAL Marxist state, what technologies would be recieving the subsidies? Remember, Soviets would be free to approve or disapprove subsidies to the project, so each advance would have to have either a) a demonstrative social benefit or b) satisfy an area of valued knowledge.
"an area of valued knowledge" really doesn't say much, does it? i mean, knowing how to make bombs is valued by many people. knowing how to perfect delivery systems for sarin gas is valued by a great many people. knowing how to efficiently torture a human being is valued by many people. on the other hand, being able to create a novel mime routine is valued by many people, and the perfection of light-up plastic nativity scenes is valued by others.

will the "value" of knowledge simply be decided by the whim of the majority? will it be chosen by the elected government? who will have the power of deciding what is valued enough to receive funding? right now, private citizens and groups may choose to fund ideas they feel are valuable, even if the government does not feel those areas are valuable...would that avenue be open in the communist system? how would minority values be funded?

um, i replied to the topic already.

No, you didn't. You mentioned what you thought what technologies WOULDN'T be developed. There is a difference.




"an area of valued knowledge" really doesn't say much, does it? i mean, knowing how to make bombs is valued by many people. knowing how to perfect delivery systems for sarin gas is valued by a great many people. knowing how to efficiently torture a human being is valued by many people. on the other hand, being able to create a novel mime routine is valued by many people, and the perfection of light-up plastic nativity scenes is valued by others.

will the "value" of knowledge simply be decided by the whim of the majority? will it be chosen by the elected government? who will have the power of deciding what is valued enough to receive funding? right now, private citizens and groups may choose to fund ideas they feel are valuable, even if the government does not feel those areas are valuable...would that avenue be open in the communist system? how would minority values be funded?

These are very creative, yet dismissive assertions. Well, why don't you use your creativity and knowledge of Marxist style decision making to imagine what technologies would be developed. I can't help but notice that you completely neglected category a, technologies with demonstrable social benefit. Like say MRI. Hell databases are extraordinarily useful for correlating medical data.

So why don't you lead by example and explore what you think technology would be like in an ideal Marxist state?

You are absolutely correct when you state that war accelerates war making technologies. That's because governments provide massive subsidies to high tech R&D in the form of defence contracts. The nifty thing about this is that the risk is completely removed from research. The corporation profits whether the research is successful or not!! Even better, if the technology is successful the corporation, not the agent that paid for it (the government) owns it. Now the corp can sell this technology back to people - a second time. Protected by patents corporations get to profit twice, once through direct tax subsidies second through sales to the public (wealthy public first).


NOW, the point of all this Marxist visualizing is to ask, IN AN IDEAL Marxist state, what technologies would be recieving the subsidies? Remember, Soviets would be free to approve or disapprove subsidies to the project, so each advance would have to have either a) a demonstrative social benefit or b) satisfy an area of valued knowledge.

Or c) help preserve the guiding elite of the Soviet State.

Stalin is the natural result of "From Each According to his Abilities, to each according to his needs." Why should a buggywhip maker, for instance, wish to see automobiles appear-thus invalidating his skills? Why would an auto worker tolerate labour-saving robots when it will put them out of work or render their skills irrelevant? The more labour-intensive your setting, the easier Communism is to impose. (and "Impose" is the correct term-people will share with those they know and care about far more willingly than they will with compleat strangers.) Farming, even with all the tech you can throw at it, is still hard-ass work. distrbution of the products of labour is something that inevitably must be supervised, because people are naturally selfish (look at kids and how they act when they don't thnk the adults are watching...)

Distribution without reward must be done by force.
Force is best employed by the Ruthless. (it's called "Efficiency" when you're one of the Ruthless people employing it.)
Ruthless people tend to be selfish.(Thus, you have Tyranny)

Distribution without reward is a fundamental result of Marxist beliefs-if you have two workers, and one does 12 hours' work in 8 hours, and the other does 6 hours' work in 8 hours, but the second worker has a family, that is not related to the first, both get paid based on their "Need". Why should worker "a" do 12 hours' work if he's going to get less than worker "b"?
(Payment, in this case is not necessarily monetary, it could be as simple as rations to eat and place to live...)

This applies to any manufacturing environment-and technology is inherently dependent on manufacturing-thus you have a problem if you are trying to distribute the wonderful products of your engineers and scientific types' creativity.

The only way to overcome this, is through force- if you hold a gun to worker "a's" head, and tell him to work harder, or he is shot, you may be able to coerce a full eight-hours from him. This requires ruthlessness to accomplish, as many hard workers are not directed by a desire to please others.

Based on this reasoning, Technology would stagnate in a Communist society, or its produce would be limited to the Elite that keeps everyone else equal-by force.

No, you didn't. You mentioned what you thought what technologies WOULDN'T be developed. There is a difference.

gee, i'm sorry if i didn't reply to this topic in a manner that meets your high standards. consider me chastened.


These are very creative, yet dismissive assertions. Well, why don't you use your creativity and knowledge of Marxist style decision making to imagine what technologies would be developed. I can't help but notice that you completely neglected category a, technologies with demonstrable social benefit. Like say MRI. Hell databases are extraordinarily useful for correlating medical data.
so...you aren't going to answer any of my questions? okay, fair enough. hopefully somebody more sporting will come along :).

gee, i'm sorry if i didn't reply to this topic in a manner that meets your high standards. consider me chastened.


so...you aren't going to answer any of my questions? okay, fair enough. hopefully somebody more sporting will come along :).

Sporting? I asked first champ, so it appears that you can't even reach YOUR low standards, much less mine :)

The largest problem with communism is that it suppresses ideas. Therefore it cannot compete with capitlaism. The only thing they can hope to do is steal iddeads from capitalist countries.

This is wrong, Marxists are reject outside political and philosophical ideas because they believe them to be by their very nature subjective. Reality is all about economics, if a society functioned on those principles, you'd be looking at something more advanced than anything else.

The largest problem with communism is that it suppresses ideas. Therefore it cannot compete with capitlaism. The only thing they can hope to do is steal iddeads from capitalist countries.

Demonstrably wrong. I) Soviet mathematicians had (and still do) the most advanced methods for dealing with non-linear functions in the world. Far more sophisticated by far. II) Mig Fighter Jet. The damn thing had 50k pounds of thrust when the F-14 could only push out 34k. The States, with all it's wealth couldn't design as good a jet engine as the Soviets. Problem was though, the Soviets couldn't work titanium as well as the american, so their planes were heavier and thus had about the same acceleration.

Two areas where they superceded western intellectual pursuit. there are others.

There would be technological advances in the field of medicine and agriculture at the very least, since human life will always be affected by health and nutrition regardless of government and political climate.

There would be technological advances in the field of medicine and agriculture at the very least, since human life will always be affected by health and nutrition regardless of government and political climate.

Yeah, definitely. I've been thinking that a lot of emphasis would be placed on communication and negotiation skills, since there would be no option to turn to an arbitter within a collective or between collective.

So, I think the areas of psychology, sociology and the social sciences would be advanced in general.

I believe that the precautionary principle would be adopted since you wouldn't be able to dump poison on other people, so a lot of basic research would be done on chemicals and their break down components in biotic systems.

Engineers would never have to engage in 'built in obsolescence' saving BILLIONS in material and useless effort. (Oh, no and efficiency in Marxism!! The end is near)

I'm sure I can think of more.

[EDIT: Just thought of one, medical research would focus more on prevention ahead of cures and cures ahead of treatment.]

Technology would be the same or better under a communist system. Without capitalism stifling the flow of ideas, technology would be free to advance at a quicker pace. Capitalism stifles innovation through the use of patents and through its encouragement of the use of trade secrets. Communism would be free from those stumbling blocks on the path to innovation.

As an example lets look at the field of computers. The operating system that runs on most people's desktops (Windows) was created under the capitalist system. It is vastly inferior to products created out of a communist free flow of ideas/work for free system (linux and FreeBSD). Yet the Open Source movement is stifled by the need to follow capitalist laws such as software patents. It also finds its self redoing the work others had done in the past because they need to code it in an entirely different way if they want it to be patent free, or worse, they have to discover how to do it because the knowledge on how to do it is not shared and is a trade secret. Under a communist system, without the existance of patents or trade secrets or any of those innovation stiflers, the Operating Systems we use would be vastly superior to anything in existence today. They would be as easy to use as Windows but as powerful and secure as Linux.

A communist system would create the free flow of ideas necessary to advance technology at a faster pace. People would create new technology because they like to do it and because its something they want, rather than doing it because its what the company pays them to do. We would be free from artificial stiflers of innovation like patents and trade secrets. Ideas would be free, technology would be free. It would be grand.

I like this thread, it's pretty subversive. Always fun to explode the myth's of Capitalist enterprise.

And LazyHippies, thanx for including the open source movement. It completely slipped my mind.

A lot of tech we have today arises from consumerism, which is an outgrowth of western style democracy*. So probably in areas like PCs, Televsions, Movies, audio, automobiles, air-conditioning, that kind of jazz, any marxist system would seriously lag behind.

I think in terms of mega engineering, like dams, bridges, tunnels, there is a good argument that the soviets would have a substantial lead, inasmuch as they were always willing to tackle the bigger projects. (And indeed the USSR produced some very fine Structural/Civil engineers and mathematicians).

Areas like aerospace - because they are driven by both consumer demand and central planning - I think we would be about where we are today, but more towards the Airbus industry view of the future, than the Boeing.

Of course, surveilence technology would be much more advaced under the Commies.

*nobody knows what capitalism is, so I don't think anyone should use the word.