NationStates Jolt Archive

One glaring flaw I see with Socialist economic systems is that they hinder the advancement of technology. Without the competition that exists in Capitalist economies between different firms, their is no initiative to develop better technology or better products and be better than your competitors.

Economist Milton Friedman argued that socialism, by which he meant state ownership over the means of production, impedes technological progress due to competition being stifled. As evidence, he said that we need only look to the U.S. to see where socialism fails, by observing that the most technologically backward areas are those where government owns the means of production.

Without a reward system, it is argued, many inventors or investors would not risk time or capital for research. This was one of the reasons for the United States Patent system and copyright law.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance)

So, Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to get a meaningful debate going on this, and I'd especially like Andaras' opinion since he seems to be NSG's Official Communist.

Coming Soon....A POLL!

EDIT: I am not trying to flame or bash Communism or Socialism. I am just trying to start a debate on something I feel is a problem with Socialist economies...please don't flame the thread...please...

One glaring problem I see with Socialist economic systems is that they hinder the advancement of technology. Without the competition that exists in Capitalist economies between different firms, their is no initiative to develop better technology or better products and be better than your competitors.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance)

So, Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to get a meaningful debate going on this, and I'd especially like Andaras' opinion since he seems to be NSG's Official Communist.

Coming Soon....A POLL!

Agree. But we foreworned, you will be viciously flamed by the commies and socialists in this forum.

That's BS. In Japan, companies work together to make better shit. You need the right attitude. Americans are so hating of anything government, but want all the perks.

It certainly is workable. The government needs to do a good job of promoting "for the greater good" and not "for profit". It can be done and it will be done.

One glaring problem I see with Socialist economic systems is that they hinder the advancement of technology. Without the competition that exists in Capitalist economies between different firms, their is no initiative to develop better technology or better products and be better than your competitors.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance)

So, Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to get a meaningful debate going on this, and I'd especially like Andaras' opinion since he seems to be NSG's Official Communist.

Coming Soon....A POLL!

Yes, but under capitalism, the only technology that are developed are the ones that are profitable. A major impediment to the spirit of scientific discovery, I'd say.

That's BS. In Japan, companies work together to make better shit. You need the right attitude.

pfft...Commie...:p

It may be "wrong" or even "immoral", but would you agree that technology advances much faster and "better" when you have different firms competing rather than different (State-Owned) firms monopolizing and specializing in different sectors of industry?

There is nothing advancing about a Marxist socialist society, be it economic, political, or social.

Agree. But we foreworned, you will be viciously flamed by the commies and socialists in this forum.

I was thinking about that, maybe I should put a disclaimer...

I do agree but that is why we need a mixed system because if you have the extremes of both you would be screwed

Socialist economies are good at advancing technology in very specific areas; they have the kind of centralized resources and focus that can push development forward in certain areas. They have demonstrated their ability to advance in the basic sciences and military technology quite clearly during the Cold War.

However, in others, they lag horribly. Development of new industrial equipment or ways of improving productivity are often put on the back burner due to the lack of competition; if there is no real need to improve profit margins or efficiency, there is no reason to provide money for advancing industrial technology considerably. The result of this is economic slowdown, which then bleeds in to the resources available for scientific research, leading to an overall decline in technological progress.

The end result is a net deficiency in technological advancement compared to capitalist economies. The profit motive provides a strong reason to pursue research, although it also comes at the cost of crimping progress in fields that are not profitable.

There is nothing advancing about a Marxist socialist society, be it economic, political, or social.

Hey, be fair, it's advancing for the dictators power over the common man.

Would this be a good time to point at the space program?

Scientific advancement has very little to do with politics, even though politicians like to make themselves feel important by pretending they had anything to do with scientific advancements.

It does have something to do with it, but the final result will always depend on the actual people behind the project.

Nice thread BTW. No one has gone over this in a while and we've been in a dry spell for new threads.

That's BS. In Japan, companies work together to make better shit. You need the right attitude. Americans are so hating of anything government, but want all the perks.

And they work together to make better products because it is profitable to do so, not out of some altruistic desire to help the common good. Japanese business practices are different, but the end result is the same: they want to make money.

Oh for fuck's sake...when will people stop thinking with ideology and start thinking with reality?

Yes, but under capitalism, the only technology that are developed are the ones that are profitable. A major impediment to the spirit of scientific discovery, I'd say.

Socialism is actually practiced in many countries. Any country that has a welfare system, state funded education, medicare system and regulated utilities and insurance are democratic socialists. France is socialist.

In regards to the crippling of scientific discovery, I have to agree with the above quote.

I'd certainly think there wouldn't be as much, but necessity will force advancement eventually. Besides, do you know how many things were invented for the military? If the people are starving, would the government not try (unless they're totalitarian) to find a way to make machines more efficient to get more from the land? If a disease is spreading through the populace, would the state not try to find a cure? If the bourgeoise capitalist pigs were invading, would the nation not develop new, better weapons?

Would this be a good time to point at the space program?

Scientific advancement has very little to do with politics, even though politicians like to make themselves feel important by pretending they had anything to do with scientific advancements.

It does have something to do with it, but the final result will always depend on the actual people behind the project.

But look how fast the Soviets were passed. They had a pretty good head start, and yet they were passed during Gemini. The weaknesses weren't necessarily in design or construction, it was proprietary technology. For example, the Soviet Union never really came close to developing an analog to the Apollo Guidance Computer.

Who got into space first?

'Nuff said.

I'd certainly think there wouldn't be as much, but necessity will force advancement eventually. Besides, do you know how many things were invented for the military? If the people are starving, would the government not try (unless they're totalitarian) to find a way to make machines more efficient to get more from the land? If a disease is spreading through the populace, would the state not try to find a cure? If the bourgeoise capitalist pigs were invading, would the nation not develop new, better weapons?

1. No. The Soviet Union instead tried first to confiscate grain from farmers, then it tried to increase production by tilling more land, and finally ended up buying it from the West when deficits started to appear in the 1970's. Agricultural productivity was a major, major hindrance for the Soviet Union during its entire history.

2. Not really. Again, the Soviet Union tended to simply deny their existence or downplay the effects. This was especially true during the anthrax leak at Sverdlovsk, when many people died in an outbreak of weapons-grade anthrax.

3. That's about the only thing they did besides basic research.

Who got into space first?

'Nuff said.

Look at The South Islands' post...

But look how fast the Soviets were passed. They had a pretty good head start, and yet they were passed during Gemini. The weaknesses weren't necessarily in design or construction, it was proprietary technology. For example, the Soviet Union never really came close to developing an analog to the Apollo Guidance Computer.

Who got into space first?

'Nuff said.

I don't know why people keep bringing up the space race. It was the Soviet government versus the American government, not Soviet government versus American industry. NASA wasn't motivated by profit, it was motivated by beating the Soviets. When it "won" with the moon landing, things settled down, a lot.

I don't know why people keep bringing up the space race. It was the Soviet government versus the American government, not Soviet government versus American industry. NASA wasn't motivated by profit, it was motivated by beating the Soviets. When it "won" with the moon landing, things settled down, a lot.

But NASA didn't develop alot of the technoligy themselves. They outsourced the vast majority of their work to private companies, all coordinated through NASA. For example, the ever so vital Guidance computer was developed for NASA by the MIT Insturmenation lab. NASA took their specifications, and gave those to North American and Grumman, who worked the size, weight, and power requirements into the CM and LM. That was NASA's primary mission, telling companies what they needed. They didn't do the R&D themselves.

Perhaps communism is flawed when it comes to economic development, but, may I just mention one country? China.

China is an economic powerhouse, it will probably become the most powerful nation in the world within then ext 50 years or so. It is a communist country, although not as hard-line as Russia, but still communist. So how can anyone even think to say that communism prevents the efficient development of an economy.

But NASA didn't develop alot of the technoligy themselves. They outsourced the vast majority of their work to private companies, all coordinated through NASA. For example, the ever so vital Guidance computer was developed for NASA by the MIT Insturmenation lab. NASA took their specifications, and gave those to North American anf Grumman, who worked the size, weight, and power requirements into the CM and LM. That was NASA's primary mission, telling companies what they needed. They didn't do the R&D themselves.

That's true, but I don't consider that to be capitalism, really. In these instances, the companies were just acting as extensions of the government, not private vendors.
They were still working for profit, though. Maybe that's the difference between the American and the Soviet space program; the American R&D was motivated by profit while the Soviet wasn't.

Perhaps communism is flawed when it comes to economic development, but, may I just mention one country? China.

China is an economic powerhouse, it will probably become the most powerful nation in the world within then ext 50 years or so. It is a communist country, although not as hard-line as Russia, but still communist. So how can anyone even think to say that communism prevents the efficient development of an economy.

Not really communist any more, pretty capitalist actually.

That's true, but I don't consider that to be capitalism, really. In these instances, the companies were just acting as extensions of the government, not private vendors.
They were still working for profit, though. Maybe that's the difference between the American and the Soviet space program; the American R&D was motivated by profit while the Soviet wasn't.

There was also fear of the soviets having space control and national pride too.

Perhaps communism is flawed when it comes to economic development, but, may I just mention one country? China.

China is an economic powerhouse, it will probably become the most powerful nation in the world within then ext 50 years or so. It is a communist country, although not as hard-line as Russia, but still communist. So how can anyone even think to say that communism prevents the efficient development of an economy.

China's about as communist as we are...they have a firm commitment to the capitalist system now that they've seen its benefits.

That's true, but I don't consider that to be capitalism, really. In these instances, the companies were just acting as extensions of the government, not private vendors.
They were still working for profit, though. Maybe that's the difference between the American and the Soviet space program; the American R&D was motivated by profit while the Soviet wasn't.

I disagree. A system like that is almost exactly like the modern capitalist system. People were paid for results. Grumman wasn't motivated by any particular patriotic interest when developing the LM; they did it to make tons of money. And they got paid for results. No results, no money. Very different from the Soviet R&D system.

pfft...Commie...:p

It may be "wrong" or even "immoral", but would you agree that technology advances much faster and "better" when you have different firms competing rather than different (State-Owned) firms monopolizing and specializing in different sectors of industry?
No. In my opinion, Marxism can get technological advances faster. Case in point: Russia/USSR going through a century of industrialization in about 15 years.

And they work together to make better products because it is profitable to do so, not out of some altruistic desire to help the common good. Japanese business practices are different, but the end result is the same: they want to make money.
Wrong. They do it for the greater good of Japan.

Perhaps communism is flawed when it comes to economic development, but, may I just mention one country? China.

China is an economic powerhouse, it will probably become the most powerful nation in the world within then ext 50 years or so. It is a communist country, although not as hard-line as Russia, but still communist. So how can anyone even think to say that communism prevents the efficient development of an economy.
China is not communist.

Wrong. They do it for the greater good of Japan.

Yes, along the same lines of "What is good for General Motors is good for America."

Or, in their case, "What is good for Mitsubishi is good for Japan". Make no mistake, the keiretsu are interested in their own profits and influence first and always have been. It just so happens that decades of government-business intermixing have produced an environment that makes their profitability politically valuable.

Even if this was true, would it be a bad thing?

Even if this was true, would it be a bad thing?

You bring up an important point.

The prospect of public control over the economy contains with it the prospect of a public that is capable of choosing the degree and direction of technological progress and controlling the sorts of effects it has on their lives.

To the extent that market capitalism offers us this freedom, it does so only in the narrowest of ways.

Even if this was true, would it be a bad thing?

Not really bad, more of a flaw or weakness with the ideology or the system...

I'm sure some people would consider it "bad" though...

Oh for fuck's sake...when will people stop thinking with ideology and start thinking with reality?

Exactly right, which is why Marxism is superior as it is a social science as opposed to all other ideological/religious/philosophical abstractions.

Capitalism stifles individual development by promoting social parasitism. Socialism considers the collective property of the products of labor as the necessary complement to the free development of the person, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption. Capitalism forces workers into wage labor, whereupon they must work and then only receive a tiny portion of the true value of their labor, thus it is completely unjust and doomed.

The prospect of public control over the economy contains with it the prospect of a public that is capable of choosing the degree and direction of technological progress and controlling the sorts of effects it has on their lives.

But only if it is actually the public controlling it, and not the government's top bureaucrats and politicians controlling it for their own personal gain under the guise of acting in the popular interest.

That's why many US government research initiatives work so well; they had government support to supply the funding and material needs of the researchers, but in most cases the researchers were free to pursue their own projects within the scope of the initiative. There is the freedom of acting in the public interest combined with the lack of a profit motive, which removes pressure to focus on what is profitable rather than what is best for the people involved.

Yes, along the same lines of "What is good for General Motors is good for America."

Or, in their case, "What is good for Mitsubishi is good for Japan". Make no mistake, the keiretsu are interested in their own profits and influence first and always have been. It just so happens that decades of government-business intermixing have produced an environment that makes their profitability politically valuable.
No, you got it backwards. What's good for Japan is good for Toyota, Honda, etc. Country first, profits later. This is the country that trained its citizens to fight with kitchen supplies should the US invade. Stop saying such supercilious statements of socialist success stories and playing them down.

Capitalism stifles individual development by promoting social parasitism. Socialism considers the collective property of the products of labor as the necessary complement to the free development of the person, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption.

Stallman moment. :D

Americans are so hating of anything government, but want all the perks.

And yet they keep electing statist politicians. Hmmm.

No, you got it backwards. What's good for Japan is good for Toyota, Honda, etc. Country first, profits later. This is the country that trained its citizens to fight with kitchen supplies should the US invade. Stop saying such supercilious statements of socialist success stories and playing them down.

I'd love to see your source on that one.

And yet they keep electing statist politicians. Hmmm.
Never ceases to amaze me how that works.

No, you got it backwards. What's good for Japan is good for Toyota, Honda, etc. Country first, profits later. This is the country that trained its citizens to fight with kitchen supplies should the US invade. Stop saying such supercilious statements of socialist success stories and playing them down.

You honestly think the Japanese economy was or is anywhere near socialist, or that its economic miracle of the 1950's-1980's was even remotely due to the use of socialist economic policies? Do you have any idea how much money the zaibatsu made off of Japanese militarism or how big a role corporate interests played in Japan's aggression in the Pacific during the first half of the 20th century?

Seriously, Sel, you need to learn a little more about the world economy and its development before you spout weird, unfounded propaganda like this. Japan's development has been tied entirely to its pursuit of a free market, capitalist economy with a strong central government that acts primarily in the best interests of the most powerful elements of the country's business and labor blocs.

Yes, but under capitalism, the only technology that are developed are the ones that are profitable. A major impediment to the spirit of scientific discovery, I'd say.
Erm... With all seriousness, what ISN'T profitable nowadays? Examples would be nice, but I can't seem to think of anything that isn't profitable.
And yet they keep electing statist politicians. Hmmm.
Don't remind me...:(
There is nothing advancing about a Marxist socialist society, be it economic, political, or social.
Exacly. I couldn't agree more.
That's BS. In Japan, companies work together to make better shit.
To make more money that is not going to the government. Also the Japanese companys are not collaborating on EVERYTHING. Otherwise they could be considered one big company. *Drools as thinks about Nintendo-Sony crossover system*
You need the right attitude. Americans are so hating of anything government, but want all the perks.

Unfortunalty, that is the mindset of many people.*Crosses fingers in hope that mankind will smarten up someday*
It certainly is workable. The government needs to do a good job of promoting "for the greater good" and not "for profit". It can be done and it will be done.
It certainly is not workable. Government has no competition and no incentive to do better. You can't really destroy a government like you can a buisness (At least, not without violence usually). Mankind is by nature greedy, and you can't stop that. It will always turn to profit, and theres nothing you can do about it.

Also, a question for Communists living in capitalist countries. Do you use anything created by private buinesses? If so, isn't that supporting the system you claim to be aganst? And don't tell me you went out and gathered all the parts for your computer yourself, cause I'm not buying it.

I'd love to see your source on that one.
Economics class.

EDIT: And somewhere I read about some woman saying she was taught how to fight back should the US invade.

Socialism is the only true progressive mode of production as it harnesses the power of modern industry while doing away with the antagonistic contradictions inherent in bourgeois property. Commodification is not 'natural', it's an unnatural imposition.

Arguing about 'socialism' and 'capitalism' however does not make sense as your abstracting both systems of social organizations from reality, socialism is natural successor to capitalism just as capitalism succeeded feudalism.

You honestly think the Japanese economy was or is anywhere near socialist, or that its economic miracle of the 1950's-1980's was even remotely due to the use of socialist economic policies? Do you have any idea how much money the zaibatsu made off of Japanese militarism or how big a role corporate interests played in Japan's aggression in the Pacific during the first half of the 20th century?

Seriously, Sel, you need to learn a little more about the world economy and its development before you spout weird, unfounded propaganda like this. Japan's development has been tied entirely to its pursuit of a free market, capitalist economy with a strong central government that acts primarily in the best interests of the most powerful elements of the country's business and labor blocs.
You keep thinking that.

Unfortunalty, that is the mindset of many people.*Crosses fingers in hope that mankind will smarten up someday*
You need a government that promotes it well. It's takes a lot of time to reeducate a society that was brought up thinking profit=success.

It certainly is not workable. Government has no competition and no incentive to do better. You can't really destroy a government like you can a buisness (At least, not without violence usually).
The incentive is that it is better for the people, which can create much better advancements. Nationalism trumps profit.

Mankind is by nature greedy, and you can't stop that. It will always turn to profit, and theres nothing you can do about it.
Not true. Humans have been shown to be, by nature, generous. A recent study even showed that charitous people are happier.

And before you whine "PROOF! PROOF! NAOW!": Link 1 (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11582-money-game-reveals-our-inner-robin-hood.html) Link 2 (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/320/2) z0mg! Sel Appa provides proof for once!!!!!!!!!11one1

Also, a question for Communists living in capitalist countries. Do you use anything created by private buinesses? If so, isn't that supporting the system you claim to be aganst? And don't tell me you went out and gathered all the parts for your computer yourself, cause I'm not buying it.
Do we have a choice? It's not like the government has a store that sells food and such it produced.

Conserative Morality, you say in bourgeois society things are 'created' or 'built' by the bourgeois themselves? Sorry to contradict you, but it is the workers who build and have built modern society and industrialization the world over. Capital is not a mythical abstract entity as you would have it

We have thus seen that even the most favorable situation for the working class, namely the most rapid growth of capital, however much it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist, profit and wages remain as before, in inverse proportion. If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of wages rises disproportionately faster, the material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position, the social chasm which separates him from the capitalist has widened.

Conserative Morality, you say in bourgeois society things are 'created' or 'built' by the bourgeois themselves? Sorry to contradict you, but it is the workers who build and have built modern society and industrialization the world over. Capital is not a mythical abstract entity as you would have it

We have thus seen that even the most favorable situation for the working class, namely the most rapid growth of capital, however much it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist, profit and wages remain as before, in inverse proportion. If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of wages rises disproportionately faster, the material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position, the social chasm which separates him from the capitalist has widened.

How is comrade cat?

You need a government that promotes it well. It's takes a lot of time to reeducate a society that was brought up thinking profit=success.


Profit does = sucess. Just not happiness.
The incentive is that it is better for the people, which can create much better advancements.


Once again, ties to mankind being greedy. People want to kind, but want to be kind to themselves also.
Nationalism trumps profit.
Nationalism also started WW2, helped Hitler into power (Ties in with WW2) has started numorous wars before those which our more educated members of NSG could recite for you. Nationalism is NOT a good thing, nor does it provide more incentive than profit, with some exceptions. (Ex. Not taking money for betraying your country, not selling weapons to an invading country instead of your own invaded country, etc,)
Not true. Humans have been shown to be, by nature, generous. A recent study even showed that charitous people are happier.

And before you whine "PROOF! PROOF! NAOW!": Link z0mg! Sel Appa provides proof for once!!!!!!!!!11one1


And, to be generous, you need money. Generosity and greed don't cancel each other out. You can be generous and greedy, although extremes of either can cancel each other out.
Greed extreme= cheating money from a begger despite being a multi-millionaire, generous extreme= giving every free cent to the poor and living ina box despite making enough for a actual house. Compromise= Making money, keeping some for yourself but also giving some.
Happiness also= overated:p Jk
Do we have a choice? It's not like the government has a store that sells food and such it produced.
*Shrugs* You're still supporting it.

Economics class.

EDIT: And somewhere I read about some woman saying she was taught how to fight back should the US invade.

Anything a little more...erm...not made up in your head?

*Shrugs* You're still supporting it.

Well, what you're saying makes sense, and is objectively true, but doesn't necessarily matter. It's like claiming that anyone who pays their taxes is a supporter of war. Their money goes towards military spending, but they could far counteract this through political action or whatever.

Conserative Morality, you say in bourgeois society things are 'created' or 'built' by the bourgeois themselves? Sorry to contradict you, but it is the workers who build and have built modern society and industrialization the world over.
Tell me then, where did the workers get their food and shelter from? Money given to them in exchange for work. If you have neither materials nor basic necessicities, how will you build a factory? The "bourgeois" if I'm using the word correctly, gave them those materials and money to live on in exchange for their work. And before you say "But where did the bourgeois get their money? FROM EXPLOITING THE WORKER!!!!" or "From no quality of their own but by merely inheirting their money" As for the first, look at Bill Gates. He didn't inheirt his money but rather gained it through his intelligence and his good ideas (Some might disagree and point to Vista or '95, but stay with me:p). As for the second, the ones who inheirt their money won't keep it for long if they have no skills whatsoever. If they manage to keep their money it's because they are good at making decisions and/or they are good with money and understand how to manage a large group of people. Either are good skills. The "bourgeois" are the ones who have created modern society as we know it.
We have thus seen that even the most favorable situation for the working class, namely the most rapid growth of capital, however much it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist, profit and wages remain as before, in inverse proportion. If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of wages rises disproportionately faster, the material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position, the social chasm which separates him from the capitalist has widened.
:rolleyes: So you're using the argument "Well if someone else is richer than the worker, then he is unhappy" I say, the Soviet Union made everyone poor, and many people were unhappy. Which would you rather be: middle class worker with many peple above you, some luxuries, plenty of food. OR: Dirt poor barly able to scrounge up enough food to feed you and your family with everyone else in a similar position? The rest of your paragraph is Communist propaganda (To be fair, the whole thing is Communist propaganda, but the rest also has no point)

Well, what you're saying makes sense, and is objectively true, but doesn't necessarily matter. It's like claiming that anyone who pays their taxes is a supporter of war. Their money goes towards military spending, but they could far counteract this through political action or whatever.
Point taken.


Also, my apologies to the OP for going slightly off track from Why does/does socialism hinder technology? to Capitalism Vs. Communism.

Profit does = sucess. Just not happiness.
No, success is when you are satisfied with life. Satisfaction is when you are happy. So you just proved yourself wrong.

Once again, ties to mankind being greedy. People want to kind, but want to be kind to themselves also.
How does supporting an improved society mean one is greedy?

Nationalism also started WW2, helped Hitler into power (Ties in with WW2) has started numorous wars before those which our more educated members of NSG could recite for you. Nationalism is NOT a good thing, nor does it provide more incentive than profit, with some exceptions. (Ex. Not taking money for betraying your country, not selling weapons to an invading country instead of your own invaded country, etc,)
It has to be done properly. Nationalism in the true sense that you support your country. Not the government.

And, to be generous, you need money. Generosity and greed don't cancel each other out. You can be generous and greedy, although extremes of either can cancel each other out.
I gave a study that explained how even poor people gave money.

Greed extreme= cheating money from a begger despite being a multi-millionaire, generous extreme= giving every free cent to the poor and living ina box despite making enough for a actual house. Compromise= Making money, keeping some for yourself but also giving some.
Happiness also= overated:p Jk
The best solution is so everyone reaps the maximum benefit. In a capitalist society, you have 5 people with 20 benefit each and 20 people with 5 benefit each. In a socialist society, you have all 25 with 10 benefit each. When people are even, you end up getting the majority of people more and more overall.

*Shrugs* You're still supporting it.
I have no choice.

Well, for that matter I do intend to design and possibly build my own house. I also plan to grow a good portion of my own (As well as family's) food. That is, when I'm on my own and not a dependent as I am now.

Spelling errors in bold.

Anything a little more...erm...not made up in your head?
Sure:
Economics class.

EDIT: And somewhere I read about some woman saying she was taught how to fight back should the US invade.

While I do agree that free-market capitalism, due to a variety of reasons, is more conducive to science than any form of statism, I do disagree with Friedman on this.

Without a reward system, it is argued, many inventors or investors would not risk time or capital for research. This was one of the reasons for the United States Patent system and copyright law.

I disagree with the notion that patents and copyrights are a part of capitalism that allows for greater scientific progress; in fact, I would say that such a system is a statist intervention that blocks true capitalism. One cannot have a property right to an idea, as ideas are not tangible objects that can be occupied, and thus are not scarce. In fact, enforcement of 'rights' in ideas takes away the rights of people to use the actual physical objects that they own as they see fit, and are thus a contradiction in terms. In fact, if you look historically, Switzerland and the Netherlands which had no patent laws technologically outperformed their neighbors which did.

Also, my apologies to the OP for going slightly off track from Why does/does socialism hinder technology? to Capitalism Vs. Communism.

Oh no! A thread as been hijacked! The end is nigh! :D

Spelling errors in bold..

Bourgeois grammatical elitism! :p

I'll stop now.

Capitalism may propel the development of technology, unless the development of technology would cause them to ultimately lose money.

Take, for example, Cancer. Drug companies make millions off of the treatments they develop, if they discovered that the cure fore cancer was very simple, what makes you think they wouldn't try to retard the development of such a thing to maximize profits?

Not really communist any more, pretty capitalist actually.

To an extent, but the main problem with classification as Capitalist/Communist is that Capitalism is a purely economic system, whilst Communism is economic, political and social.

How does supporting an improved society mean one is greedy?


What? What in the world are you talking about?
It has to be done properly. Nationalism in the true sense that you support your country. Not the government.


Why would I support artificial man-made boundries, when the government is some Neo-Nazi police state ( No I am not saying the US is a Neo-Nazi is a police state) If there was a better place I knew about than the US, I would definitly emigrate when I hit 18. Which would you prefer, 1940 Soviet Russia just because you were born there, or 1955 USA, because it's downright better?
The best solution is so everyone reaps the maximum benefit. In a capitalist society, you have 5 people with 20 benefit each and 20 people with 5 benefit each. In a socialist society, you have all 25 with 10 benefit each. When people are even, you end up getting the majority of people more and more overall.

Wrong. In a socialist society, everyones benefit changes, just like in regular society, but when 1 changes, they all do, lest someone have more. So it would be more like 20 people have only 3 benefit, because someone along the line screwed up and everyone is poor now. Also, socialist societys discourage professions with skills. Why would I want to go through years of college, when I can make just as much sitting behind a register? Easier job, same pay.
I gave a study that explained how even poor people gave money.


Which dosen't mean that they're not greedy. Lack of money does not cancel greed. It only means that their generosity is more appreciated by society.
Take, for example, Cancer. Drug companies make millions off of the treatments they develop, if they discovered that the cure fore cancer was very simple, what makes you think they wouldn't try to retard the development of such a thing to maximize profits?
They wouldn't retard it. They would add a bunch of uneccisary (But harmless) ingriediants, and sell it for more. They make money, we get a cure for cancer, we're all happy. Until someone finds out the actual cure and the drug companys pull the product and put the real and cheaper one on the shelves, which makes us even happier:D.

Sorry for my spelling and grammer tonight, it's 3:00 AM where I'm at and the caffiene has worn off.

You're forgetting a major point of why capitalism is better, and why the US won the space race (and the Cold War).

Capitalist economies with free-markets produce more wealth. What technology won't be discovered through competition for profit can be developed by the government through tax money.

In the USA, there is a MUCH larger tax base due to the free market, and so more money could be dumped into things like space and basic science research.

In Soviet Russia, while they were able to get ahead initially by pooling all their resources into Sputnik and then Gagarin, they quickly fell behind because their economy could not support the expense of their developments. Soviet Space Shuttle Buran never made it to orbit because the Soviety economy was so dead they couldn't afford a reliable space program...

Finally, large government monopolies have a tendency to lose efficiency with age and waste funds, and can almost never be replace, unlike in a free market. Take that all into consideration, and in the long term mature free markets will produce more and better technology.

One glaring flaw I see with Socialist economic systems is that they hinder the advancement of technology. Without the competition that exists in Capitalist economies between different firms, their is no initiative to develop better technology or better products and be better than your competitors.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance)

So, Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to get a meaningful debate going on this, and I'd especially like Andaras' opinion since he seems to be NSG's Official Communist.

Coming Soon....A POLL!

EDIT: I am not trying to flame or bash Communism or Socialism. I am just trying to start a debate on something I feel is a problem with Socialist economies...please don't flame the thread...please...They people actually behind the scientific discoveries tend to be allot less interested in researching for profit and researching for the sake doing the research (ie they like doing it more than they like getting paid for it). I mean, if they wanted money, they probably wouldn't be a scientist. There are much more profitable career choices available to them.

I think this is something most people miss when this subject gets brought up. In economic discussion, people are only allowed to do things that make them money (or they think will make them money), while this is simply not the case. Do you think that all the scientists in the country are going to go decide they don't like science any more just because the country went communist? Do you really think the day after the revolution all the scientist are going to go into their basement and destroy that Tesla coil they built in college? Probably not.

If the change were to happen, I do not think that development would slow significantly in the long term. Initially, yes it probably would. There are lots of people who do it only because it is their job. There would be a change in direction that would be pretty substantial. People would spend more effort on what is the most correct instead of the most profitable. In the current system, a baffling number of scientific studies have the results determined before the research group is even determined (ie the group will be told "Prove that homosexuality is determined by genetics." instead of "Determine what, if any, influence genetics has over human sexual preference."). That is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive; the two often go hand in hand. Its just they do not always go hand in hand, which is scary. There is allot of bad science out there because of it too.

Of course, I have ignored many things here. Scientist are not the only source of technological breakthroughs. I do think they tend to be the most important. They are the ones finding the facts that others use and abuse. I also managed to completely ignored other factors that motivate how people work (pride, social pressure, etc). However, I do think I that those absences detract from my point.

tl;dr Scientist love being scientist. That is their initiative, not capitalist profit. Scientists are not businessmen.

They people actually behind the scientific discoveries tend to be allot less interested in researching for profit and researching for the sake doing the research (ie they like doing it more than they like getting paid for it). I mean, if they wanted money, they probably wouldn't be a scientist. There are much more profitable career choices available to them.

I think this is something most people miss when this subject gets brought up. In economic discussion, people are only allowed to do things that make them money (or they think will make them money), while this is simply not the case. Do you think that all the scientists in the country are going to go decide they don't like science any more just because the country went communist? Do you really think the day after the revolution all the scientist are going to go into their basement and destroy that Tesla coil they built in college? Probably not.

If the change were to happen, I do not think that development would slow significantly in the long term. Initially, yes it probably would. There are lots of people who do it only because it is their job. There would be a change in direction that would be pretty substantial. People would spend more effort on what is the most correct instead of the most profitable. In the current system, a baffling number of scientific studies have the results determined before the research group is even determined (ie the group will be told "Prove that homosexuality is determined by genetics." instead of "Determine what, if any, influence genetics has over human sexual preference."). That is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive; the two often go hand in hand. Its just they do not always go hand in hand, which is scary. There is allot of bad science out there because of it too.

Of course, I have ignored many things here. Scientist are not the only source of technological breakthroughs. I do think they tend to be the most important. They are the ones finding the facts that others use and abuse. I also managed to completely ignored other factors that motivate how people work (pride, social pressure, etc). However, I do think I that those absences detract from my point.

tl;dr Scientist love being scientist. That is their initiative, not capitalist profit. Scientists are not businessmen.

The scientists may not be motivated by profit, but the businessmen that hire them are. Since these businessmen each want to out-do each other they spend more money and hire more scientists etc. and technology advances much more...that's what I was getting at...

But look how fast the Soviets were passed. They had a pretty good head start, and yet they were passed during Gemini. The weaknesses weren't necessarily in design or construction, it was proprietary technology. For example, the Soviet Union never really came close to developing an analog to the Apollo Guidance Computer.The Soviets also had a shittacular industrial base for that kind of science. I mean, they couldn't do real research in electricity and magnetism because they could not generate the raw electricity needed without rerouting power from entire cities (although they did try that, but it just happened to horrify many of the people involved).

Socialism is the only true progressive mode of production as it harnesses the power of modern industry while doing away with the antagonistic contradictions inherent in bourgeois property. Commodification is not 'natural', it's an unnatural imposition.

Arguing about 'socialism' and 'capitalism' however does not make sense as your abstracting both systems of social organizations from reality, socialism is natural successor to capitalism just as capitalism succeeded feudalism.

Was this supposed to be an answer top the OP? If so, it doesn't really answer anything. I mean, you made a statement:

]Socialism is the only true progressive mode of production as it harnesses the power of modern industry while doing away with the antagonistic contradictions inherent in bourgeois property.

Then started going off-topic and talking about commodities. You didn't even try to back up the above statement. I don't even know what you were talking about there...

And the rest of the post is "Socialism is teh pwn"

I'm asking if a lack of competition in Socialist economies, leads to technological stagnation or slowdown, compared to Capitalist economies where many firms compete with each other.

If this wasn't a reply to the OP, disregard this reply.

Most scientists don't became scientists just to pursue some great discovery that will score the big bucks and make them rich. Many technically minded people are poor businessmen who neither know nor care how to maximise profits.

Some of the big research projects today like archaeological digs (collectors on the black market would pay more), particle accelerators, telescopes and non-commercial space missions doesn't seem very profitable. The big historical discoveries like for example heliocentrism, the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity doesn't seem to be very profitable for the persons who discovered them.

I don't think advancement would stop if you take profit out of the equation but if the government decides what should be researched then all the resources will be focused on a few key areas like nukes and space program while many other areas that also important will be neglected. A communist government would have to give scientists free hands in what to research plus rights like freedom of speech to achieve progress comparable to a capitalistic society.

The scientists may not be motivated by profit, but the businessmen that hire them are. Since these businessmen each want to out-do each other they spend more money and hire more scientists etc. and technology advances much more...that's what I was getting at...What I am getting at is the scientists would probably be doing it anyways. They do it for work now as they need the money to both sustain themselves and preform the science in question. In communism, they wouldn't need to do it as a job. They'd get food/clothing/housing by virtue of existing and the economy would be able to provide the resources needed to due the research itself (or so the theory goes). What part of this hampers their lust for scientific knowledge?

What I am getting at is the scientists would probably be doing it anyways. They do it for work now as they need the money to both sustain themselves and preform the science in question. In communism, they wouldn't need to do it as a job. They'd get food/clothing/housing by virtue of existing and the economy would be able to provide the resources needed to due the research itself (or so the theory goes). What part of this hampers their lust for scientific knowledge?

Funding for their work. It takes serious amounts of money to run a state-of-the-art lab, and I know because I work in one.

One of my lab-mates used to work in the Soviet Union until she made it out, and they used to do Biochemistry research only in winter so they would have a constant supply of ice to keep their enzymes from going bad. They were cutting costs so much they couldn't afford freezers! Weak socialist economy=no money for research.

Needles to say, she enjoys living and working in the US much more than in the Soviet Union.

The scientists may not be motivated by profit, but the businessmen that hire them are. Since these businessmen each want to out-do each other they spend more money and hire more scientists etc. and technology advances much more...that's what I was getting at...
In a communist society the scientists would not need businessmen to hire them and pay them a salary as the government would hire them.
One of my lab-mates used to work in the Soviet Union until she made it out, and they used to do Biochemistry research only in winter so they would have a constant supply of ice to keep their enzymes from going bad. They were cutting costs so much they couldn't afford freezers! Weak socialist economy=no money for research.
So communism does not harm research directly, it harms the economy directly which in turn harms research indirectly when the poor economy can't afford the research.

Funding for their work. It takes serious amounts of money to run a state-of-the-art lab, and I know because I work in one.

One of my lab-mates used to work in the Soviet Union until she made it out, and they used to do Biochemistry research only in winter so they would have a constant supply of ice to keep their enzymes from going bad. They were cutting costs so much they couldn't afford freezers! Weak socialist economy=no money for research.

Needles to say, she enjoys living and working in the US much more than in the Soviet Union.
See, I assumed the thread was more of an "all things being equal, which economy type produces the fastest technological development?"

My assumptions have all been based that if the socialist economy is weak, so is the capitalist economy. If the capitalist economy is strong, then so is the socialist. If the socialist economy cannot afford freezers, than neither can the capitalist.

In a communist society the scientists would not need businessmen to hire them and pay them a salary as the government would hire them.

So communism does not harm research directly, it harms the economy directly which in turn harms research indirectly when the poor economy can't afford the research.

Precisely...even in the rich US, there is intense competition among academics to get funding from the government. It is one of the reasons professors crave tenure, because tenure frees them from the pressure to constantly win government grant money in order to keep their jobs.

See, I assumed the thread was more of an "all things being equal, which economy type produces the fastest technological development?"

My assumptions have all been based that if the socialist economy is weak, so is the capitalist economy. If the capitalist economy is strong, then so is the socialist. If the socialist economy cannot afford freezers, than neither can the capitalist.

That's great for discussing the theory, but in practice, the capitalist economy will have more and more resources to pour into research, assuming mature free markets.

In theory, I suppose, the rate of major breakthroughs will be determined by the skills of the individual scientists and the quality of the education systems churning out said scientists. Also very importantly, the percentage of said economy pumped into research will speed or slow discoveries.

While the theory is nice, research doesn't happen in vacuum, and so it is unwise to choose policies based upon your question.

It's sort of like asking "If there was no gravity, would earth have an atmosphere?" You shouldn't go off and then give everyone oxygen tanks, just in case.

That's great for discussing the theory, but in practice, the capitalist economy will have more and more resources to pour into research, assuming mature free markets.

In theory, I suppose, the rate of major breakthroughs will be determined by the skills of the individual scientists and the quality of the education systems churning out said scientists. Also very importantly, the percentage of said economy pumped into research will speed or slow discoveries.

While the theory is nice, research doesn't happen in vacuum, and so it is unwise to choose policies based upon your question.

It's sort of like asking "If there was no gravity, would earth have an atmosphere?" You shouldn't go off and then give everyone oxygen tanks, just in case.
Except your question just boils down to "Which is better for scientific research: a rich economy, or a poor economy?" to which the answer is obvious. It'd be stupid to have to discuss.

Marx's original point about communist society was that it was the inevitable final stage of societal evolution; society would be practically completely automated by this point. One could say the point was slightly irrelevant from that standpoint; secondarily, it's not as if independent inventors don't exist... where would we all be without the selfless non-corporate Mr. Tim Berners-Lee?

Is all technological progress a positive thing?
If not, isn't reducing negative technological progress a good thing?

(Incidentally, Friedman's assumption of there being a state in the socialist economy might be fine for the discussion, but isn't a necessary assumption to make when discussing socialism.
There are many counter-examples, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) being one of them.)

Well, capitalism isn't exactly good at advancing technology in areas that aren't showing direct profit. So it's very good at developing better ways to produce things, but not so good at abstract scientific discovery.

I'd even be willing to tentatively say that well implemented socialism might be better for that, as scientists would not have to worry about selling inventions, but rather making discoveries and scientific progress.

However, I'm more of a proponent of Zerowork than either of these.

The best solution is so everyone reaps the maximum benefit. In a capitalist society, you have 5 people with 20 benefit each and 20 people with 5 benefit each. In a socialist society, you have all 25 with 10 benefit each. When people are even, you end up getting the majority of people more and more overall.


Well done, you just elimated a major reason why capalist societies tend to be more successful and also just overcame a basic human drive.

The need to be better than your neighbours.

Why should I goto work and be super productive if someone who 'works' next to me does bugger all and spends all day idling and yet gets the same pay as me.
Why should the backyard inventor come up with a whizzo new vacuum cleaner, if his reward for doing so is min wage , exactly what his drunkard work shy neighbour gets.
Once you remove incentive, the population drops to a base level.

You will get a few individuals who work for the good of the state, but these will be rare.

Socialism is based on a false idea that man will act for the good of society, and not what man really acts like.... a barely civilized ape that wants the best and tallest tree

But look how fast the Soviets were passed...

...may I just mention one country? China.

You’re forgetting a major point of why capitalism is better, and why the US won the space race (and the Cold War)...
May I remind people of the title of the thread: “Socialism and the advancement of technology”, not “Totalitarian ‘Communism’ and the advancement of technology”.

If you want to argue that repressive regimes such as the USSR or the PRC stifle or encourage technological growth, then by all means go ahead. But I assumed we were discussing a socialist state’s attitude towards technology (and as Jello rightly notes above, there can exist socialist societies without the state).

That's BS. In Japan, companies work together to make better shit.

This is an unfair comparison. Competition between Japanese firms is weak, but competition between Japanese and international firms is intense, especially carmakers and electronics firms. Its hardly surprising that exports are one of the only growth sectors in the Japanese economy - the domestic economy is hideously stagnant in part due to companies deliberately not competing with each other. In the end, its the Japanese consumer who suffers.

For example, the Soviet Union never really came close to developing an analog to the Apollo Guidance Computer.

And the Soviet Union space agency had a moon rover before NASA did.

When we have a communist thread, can people please stop referring to China and USSR. Prior to Communism, their is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

In USSR, this phase never finished. The privileged people who did the revolution, just changed who the privileged people were, they did not share the wealth.
China are now highly capitalist. Anyone who disagrees, and me this one question. How can a communist country have sweatshops?

If we could get a proper communist system, if anything, it would promote scientific growth. In capitalism, due to the need to make a profit, often scientific work is duplicated, by two or more labs working on similar projects. In a true communist system, their would be absolute knlowledge sharing, stopping this wastage.

Well done, you just elimated a major reason why capalist societies tend to be more successful and also just overcame a basic human drive.

The need to be better than your neighbours.
...
Once you remove incentive, the population drops to a base level.

if it is a basic human drive (something you didn't actually provide evidence for), then why would it go away in a society that doesn't offer substantially different material rewards to people? is this basic human drive literally to have more stuff than one's neighbors? is that the only plane of competition open to people? is it the plane that actually drives innovators?

Socialism is based on a false idea that man will act for the good of society

no it isn't. perhaps this is the problem with your analysis.

In USSR, this phase never finished.

Or started. The workers never ruled in the Soviet Union. Just the people who claimed to speak for them.

The notion that human innovation and creativity can only be motivated by material reward seems more a perverse element of capitalist ideology than an actual observation about human nature.

I think Marx was closer. A society laden with the economic compulsion of market capitalist relations will necessarily impede human innovation and creativity by subjecting them to the profit motive.

Such activities are suffused with internal goods... except when they are done on command.

The notion that human innovation and creativity can only be motivated by material reward seems more a perverse element of capitalist ideology than an actual observation about human nature.

yeah, it just seems so totally divorced from reality that it always baffles me when people toss it off as something that is self-evident

The notion that human innovation and creativity can only be motivated by material reward

Who said that?

Who said that?

Perhaps not "only", but several posters have come pretty close.

Perhaps not "only", but several posters have come pretty close.

That was the word you opted to emphasise. Perhaps it would make more sense to dispute what they are saying rather than what they are close to saying.

That was the word you opted to emphasise.

That's right, but you're missing the point.

The reason I emphasized it was because nobody denies that material reward can be an incentive for creativity and innovation. The capitalist argument requires the argument that material reward is the exclusive or near-exclusive motivation--otherwise socialism could simply make use of alternative motivations, and develop a culture where such motivations played a larger role in people's lives.

(Not that socialism couldn't offer material rewards for creativity and innovation. It could, and just as well as capitalism can. But it probably shouldn't.)

The reason I emphasized it was because nobody denies that material reward can be an incentive for creativity and innovation. The capitalist argument requires the argument that material reward is the exclusive or near-exclusive motivation--otherwise socialism could simply make use of alternative motivations, and develop a culture where such motivations played a larger role in people's lives.

(Not that socialism couldn't offer material rewards for creativity and innovation. It could, and just as well as capitalism can. But it probably shouldn't.)
No, capitalism does not claim that material rewards are the only motivation (Or near-only) but rather that it is the best motivator when dealing with people. Kindness and generosity are good motivators, but greed is a better one.

No. In my opinion, Marxism can get technological advances faster. Case in point: Russia/USSR going through a century of industrialization in about 15 years.

Of course you're leaving out the little detail of - they were about a century behind Europe when they did this. Also it had little to do with communism and more to do with Stalin being a very effective leader.

That's right, but you're missing the point.

The reason I emphasized it was because nobody denies that material reward can be an incentive for creativity and innovation. The capitalist argument requires the argument that material reward is the exclusive or near-exclusive motivation--otherwise socialism could simply make use of alternative motivations, and develop a culture where such motivations played a larger role in people's lives.

(Not that socialism couldn't offer material rewards for creativity and innovation. It could, and just as well as capitalism can. But it probably shouldn't.)

The idea as suggested in the OP is that capitalism encourages greater technological innovation than socialism where socialism is defined as state ownership of the means of production, rather than worker ownership of means of pruction - a more accurate description of the original intent of socialism, but Friedman's intention was to explain why technological progress in the Soviet Union and its satellites fell far behind the West - and in the Soviet Union means of production were owned and controlled by the state in a highly centralised system. The argument was not that socialism cannot have technological advances just that the system of rewarding innovation and enterprise - which exists in most capitalist economies but did not exist in the Soviet Union - is the main reason why technological advance was slower in the Soviet Union than in capitalist economies.

Of course you're leaving out the little detail of - they were about a century behind Europe when they did this. Also it had little to do with communism and more to do with Stalin being a very effective leader.
Erm... You mean Lenin right? Stalin was hardly effective. Unless you count all those people sent to the Gulag so efficently.:rolleyes:

Erm... You mean Lenin right? Stalin was hardly effective. Unless you count all those people sent to the Gulag so efficently.:rolleyes:

Lenin lacked the time in charge to achieve much industrialisation and much of it was marred by civil war. The Soviet Union's greatest industrial growth did indeed come during Stalin's years but was marred by inefficiencies and a culture which did not foster constructive criticism of your superiors.

Kindness and generosity are good motivators, but greed is a better one.

Who said that "kindness and generosity" are the only alternatives to material reward?

You, like many defenders of capitalism, seem to have a very narrow understanding of human motivation.

The argument was not that socialism cannot have technological advances just that the system of rewarding innovation and enterprise - which exists in most capitalist economies but did not exist in the Soviet Union

Okay, for starters, I doubt this. I'd suggest that more central to the trouble was a lack of accountability--without democracy or market incentives, resources could be shifted according to the whims of the ruling bureaucracy rather than with an eye to the public good, and the system of immense corruption was tolerated because all of those with the power to change it benefited themselves from it.

After all, the Soviet Union did have its share of successes in technology. It's just that they didn't help the general public and they came at high cost.

Furthermore, if the point is just about the Soviet Union, why are we discussing it in the context of the general socialism-capitalism debate in the first place?

Erm... You mean Lenin right? Stalin was hardly effective. Unless you count all those people sent to the Gulag so efficently.:rolleyes:

No, I don't. Stalin was very effective, all you have to do is look at the results of his 5-year plans (yes they all fell short of their goals, but what was accomplished was incredible)

You keep thinking that.


That's it? That's all you have to say? After Vetalia put all that effort (well probably barely any to him, but still) in completely destroying your argument, the best you can come up with is 'you keep thinking that'? Come on, put a little effort in will ya'.

Who said that "kindness and generosity" are the only alternatives to material reward?


To be fair, the only motivations I can think of in a pure socialist state are just equivalent altruistic senses, like justice etc... What other motivations do you think exist when there is no competition?

You keep thinking that.

I enjoy living in the real world, so I will.

To be fair, the only motivations I can think of in a pure socialist state are just equivalent altruistic senses, like justice etc...

Ever played a game of chess? Is the desire to win in chess a matter of kindness or justice? Is chess anti-socialist somehow?

People enjoy lots of activities for their own sake. They might also do activities for any variety of non-material external rewards--competition, for instance, which viewed as such has no necessary component in material reward.

(Not that socialism need abolish all or even most material rewards anyway--just the system of ownership that results in a class relation between employer and employed.)

What other motivations do you think exist when there is no competition?

Competition is great. Socialism does not abolish competition as such. Socialism aims instead to abolish the sort of competition that makes human welfare and human freedom insecure.

To be fair, the only motivations I can think of in a pure socialist state are just equivalent altruistic senses, like justice etc... What other motivations do you think exist when there is no competition?

how are you defining competition?

Okay, for starters, I doubt this. I'd suggest that the Soviet Union did have rewards for innovation and enterprise... and even had a number of significant successes in the process. The trouble was a lack of accountability--without democracy or market incentives, resources could be shifted according to the whims of the ruling bureaucracy rather than with an eye to the public good, and the system of immense corruption was tolerated because all of those with the power to change it benefited themselves from it.

I won't deny that accountability was another hindrance to advancement.

However, many idea and inventions were taken by the government for state production. Sure, you'd get 'rewarded' with the possibility of a medal but is that really encouragement enough?

On top of that, there was also the culture of not criticising your superiors - technological innovation inevitably means the replacement of old ideaswith better ones, but when those old ideas make your superior look stupid or wasteful it could at best see you ignored and at worst with a one way ticket to Siberia.

Furthermore, if the point is just about the Soviet Union, why are we discussing it in the context of the general socialism-capitalism debate in the first place?

Because people misunderstood the original point made by Friedman then ran with it?

Ever played a game of chess? Is the desire to win in chess a matter of kindness or justice? Is chess anti-socialist somehow?

People enjoy lots of activities for their own sake. They might also do activities for any variety of non-material external rewards--competition, for instance, which viewed as such has no necessary component in material reward.


But these are selfish motives, classically, although I guess not technically, socialists are supposed to be against working for selfish motives. Regardless, I don't think the desire to achieve, or to win, or be the best you can be, will be that meaningful to you when it doesn't actually effect how you live.


(Not that socialism need abolish all or even most material rewards anyway--just the system of ownership that results in a class relation between employer and employed.)


But that's very difficult to do.


Competition is great. Socialism does not abolish competition as such. Socialism aims instead to abolish the sort of competition that makes human welfare and human freedom insecure.

But it also makes competition less, well, competitive. It's like playing a game of poker with no money involved.

how are you defining competition?

Disregard that, there is competition, but not very competitive competition.

One glaring flaw I see with Socialist economic systems is that they hinder the advancement of technology. Without the competition that exists in Capitalist economies between different firms, their is no initiative to develop better technology or better products and be better than your competitors.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism#Slow_or_stagnant_technological_advance)

So, Agree? Disagree? I'd really like to get a meaningful debate going on this, and I'd especially like Andaras' opinion since he seems to be NSG's Official Communist.

Coming Soon....A POLL!

EDIT: I am not trying to flame or bash Communism or Socialism. I am just trying to start a debate on something I feel is a problem with Socialist economies...please don't flame the thread...please...

I'm actually studying comparative economics atm, and my professor (who grew up in the USSR) argues that the Soviet system was actually better at stimulating fundamental research and disseminating innovations by eliminating patents. The State paid inventors for their work and distributed their results immediately to the public domain, creating an "open-source" technology environment that disseminates cross-pollinates research far better than our proprietary models.

The weakness, he says, was in the implementation. Centrally-planned economies are poor at retiring capital stock (for complex reasons I won't go into here), and plant managers were reluctant to sacrifice production time to renovate and re-tool existing facilities, less they fall behind their production quotas. Research and technology existed, but the weaknesses of central planning made it difficult to innovate production.

Sure, you'd get 'rewarded' with the possibility of a medal but is that really encouragement enough?

Not necessarily in the Soviet Union, no.

On top of that, there was also the culture of not criticising your superiors - technological innovation inevitably means the replacement of old ideaswith better ones, but when those old ideas make your superior look stupid or wasteful it could at best see you ignored and at worst with a one way ticket to Siberia.

Yes. Yet another reason not to use the USSR as a counter-example to all possibility of socialism--nothing about the concept as such precludes free, vibrant public discourse. Quite the opposite.

I'm actually studying comparative economics atm, and my professor (who grew up in the USSR) argues that the Soviet system was actually better at stimulating fundamental research and disseminating innovations by eliminating patents. The State paid inventors for their work and distributed their results immediately to the public domain, creating an "open-source" technology environment that disseminates cross-pollinates research far better than our proprietary models.

The weakness, he says, was in the implementation. Centrally-planned economies are poor at retiring capital stock (for complex reasons I won't go into here), and plant managers were reluctant to sacrifice production time to renovate and re-tool existing facilities, less they fall behind their production quotas. Research and technology existed, but the weaknesses of central planning made it difficult to innovate production.

That's basically it in a nutshell. The Soviet system, by eliminating the pressures of profit and competition, was able to pursue considerable amounts of basic research and innovation by freeing its scientists from the pressures of economic competition.

People need to remember that scientists do research primarily because they are interested in learning and advancing their field; it's inherently an altruistic desire to learn that is their primary motivation. Most of them are just as happy working within their field of interest for the government or in sectors without patent protections as they are in private enterprise. What capitalism does is make it easier for those innovations to get to market and be implemented, filling the crucial flaws in the centrally planned economy.

But these are selfish motives,

No. Selfishness is putting yourself before others. Nothing about such motives necessarily suggests that others should be deprived of what is theirs.

Regardless, I don't think the desire to achieve, or to win, or be the best you can be, will be that meaningful to you when it doesn't actually effect how you live.

But that's nonsense. People compete over non-material goods all the time... and that in a society dominated by material rewards and economic insecurity.

But that's very difficult to do.

How so?

But it also makes competition less, well, competitive. It's like playing a game of poker with no money involved.

Perhaps. So? Poker just isn't very important to us either way. Winning a poker game is not so much of an accomplishment.

No. Selfishness is putting yourself before others. Nothing about such motives necessarily suggests that others should be deprived of what is theirs.


I basically define it as motives concerning oneself, not necessarily motives concerning ones self and putting these above other motives, even though that's how it is commonly used.


But that's nonsense. People compete over non-material goods all the time... and that in a society dominated by material rewards and economic insecurity.


But usually the non material competition is over comparatively trivial things, they are not necessarily going to put in huge amounts of hours of incredibly hard work just to compete without any material gain. There are exceptions of course, such as when the activity is already inherently competitive or enjoyable generally even when putting in huge amounts of work, such as sports. However, when there is no market, many jobs are not inherently competitive, and thus there may be no sudden desire to just compete, especially when there is seemingly nobody to compete against.


How so?


Well once you start to pay some more than others, there will likely be divides.


Perhaps. So? Poker just isn't very important to us either way. Winning a poker game is not so much of an accomplishment.

But if there was no money involved in poker, it would be no way near as massively popular and played world wide with many addicted to it, it would just be another card game like solitaire.

I basically define it as motives concerning oneself, not necessarily motives concerning ones self and putting these above other motives, even though that's how it is commonly used.

your definition is, at best, non-standard and not particularly useful.

your definition is, at best, non-standard and not particularly useful.

But when discussing altruism, that's often the standard way of using it, altruistic: concerning others, selfish: concerning your self.

I basically define it as motives concerning oneself,

Then why would anyone oppose selfishness?

But usually the non material competition is over comparatively trivial things, they are not necessarily going to put in huge amounts of hours of incredibly hard work just to compete without any material gain.

Why not? Intellectuals, to one degree or another, do this already. (Ideas, whatever the pretensions of intellectual property rights, cannot in the final analysis be owned.)

There are exceptions of course, such as when the activity is already inherently competitive or enjoyable generally even when putting in huge amounts of work, such as sports.

Aren't all activities done with others inherently competitive--at least if conditions are right for competition to function?

However, when there is no market, many jobs are not inherently competitive, and thus there may be no sudden desire to just compete, especially when there is seemingly nobody to compete against.

Why would there be "nobody to compete against"? And what's the relevance of there being "no market"?

Well once you start to pay some more than others, there will likely be divides.

But not class divides in the sense socialists object to most ardently: ownership of the means of production.

I am not anywhere near as concerned with perfect economic equality as I am concerned with class equality: some a little richer, some a little poorer, but none so poor that they must sell themselves, and none so rich than they can buy others.

In the context of industrial and post-industrial capitalism, on the individual level uniting worker and owner is impossible (because capital costs are too high)--but on the collective level, it is still possible. We can be free insofar as we only sell ourselves to ourselves.

But if there was no money involved in poker, it would be no way near as massively popular and played world wide with many addicted to it, it would just be another card game like solitaire.

People play solitaire all the time. Perhaps it's less glamorous, but then, it's a one-person game. It has no competitive element.

Then why would anyone oppose selfishness?


Because generally it is viewed that when you have selfish motivations, you put these motivations above altruistic ones.


Why not? Intellectuals, to one degree or another, do this already. (Ideas, whatever the pretensions of intellectual property rights, cannot in the final analysis be owned.)


Well it depends, scientific discoveries are incredibly important, and these tend to happen regardless of competition, since they are so important your discovery may affect the whole world and that in itself would be enough to motivate you. However, in business and for individual products, such discoveries are not so important and there is no key desire to put lots of hard work for only minor alterations in product design. It's like voting, although each individual alteration is not particularly important, when every altreration accumulated it has significant importance.


Aren't all activities done with others inherently competitive

Not necessarily, or not necessarily as competitive as if a market was present.


--at least if conditions are right for competition to function?


I happen to believe that under most forms of pure socialism, the conditions aren't right.


Why would there be "nobody to compete against"? And what's the relevance of there being "no market"?


Well, if every industry is nationalised and there are no private companies then there is nothing to compete against except yourself.


But not class divides in the sense socialists object to most ardently: ownership of the means of production.


But I don't believe that there can ever really be as an efficient economy when there are no individual owners of the means of production. But this is a digression.


I am not anywhere near as concerned with perfect economic equality as I am concerned with class equality: some a little richer, some a little poorer, but none so poor that they must sell themselves, and none so rich than they can buy others.


But realistically nothing much has changed, you could say you are still selling yourself to the community.


In the context of industrial and post-industrial capitalism, on the individual level uniting worker and owner is impossible (because capital costs are too high)--but on the collective level, it is still possible. We can be free insofar as we only sell ourselves to ourselves.


Well I would like to continue this but it is a digression, maybe another thread is in order.


People play solitaire all the time. Perhaps it's less glamorous, but then, it's a one-person game. It has no competitive element.

Actually you can play solitaire against each other (it's called solitaire showdown :p), but card games which don't involve money are no way near as competitive and commercially successful as games like poker.

Because generally it is viewed that when you have selfish motivations, you put these motivations above altruistic ones.

I don't actually think anyone thinks that. Nobody says that because you enjoy eating spaghetti you necessarily will kill someone to achieve that end.

However, in business and for individual products, such discoveries are not so important and there is no key desire to put lots of hard work for only minor alterations in product design.

Now that's a good point--there is less public esteem attached to less glamorous activities.

But why don't you think there might be small-scale competition between different people or different groups of people working on applications? Might it be a matter of pride to be best, or fastest, or most effective--especially if they are working for an objective that people can identify with, like the public good, rather than someone's private profit?

Not necessarily

Why not?

I happen to believe that under most forms of pure socialism, the conditions aren't right.

But you haven't explained why. Competition requires something that addresses people's sense of pride, and (generally) it requires some kind of public, comparative measure. This can be money, but it need not be.

Well, if every industry is nationalised and there are no private companies then there is nothing to compete against except yourself.

Only if you assume that market competition is the only kind of competition.

But realistically nothing much has changed, you could say you are still selling yourself to the community.

That's why it's important to say "we", not "I."

True, full individual freedom has always been impossible within society, but socialism allows us to be free as a public. We can work and consume in the economy we collectively choose for ourselves.

Consider it in the sense of voting you reference above, and you'll see the point: in each individual's case, we may not seem any more free, but viewed collectively it is clear we are. What we must give of ourselves, we gain from everyone else--as is a necessity in the case of freedom within society, where private objectives conflict with one another.

Actually you can play solitaire against each other (it's called solitaire showdown :p), but card games which don't involve money are no way near as competitive and commercially successful as games like poker.

Well, again, card games just aren't that important to most people's lives. They fail the first criterion of competition I mentioned above: they don't deal with our pride much. They also fail the second, in that our society relies, for the external display of success, very exclusively on money.

I don't actually think anyone thinks that. Nobody says that because you enjoy eating spaghetti you necessarily will kill someone to achieve that end.


They do think that with money however.


Now that's a good point--there is less public esteem attached to less glamorous activities.

But why don't you think there might be small-scale competition between different people or different groups of people working on applications? Might it be a matter of pride to be best, or fastest, or most effective--especially if they are working for an objective that people can identify with, like the public good, rather than someone's private profit?


I guess I could support some kind of Marxist model where multiple task forces are set up to compete each other in product design, but I am still sceptical as to whether this is really efficient enough.


Why not?


Well ok I guess every group activity is competitive, if only sometimes a very tiny bit, my main point is that a market will inherently increase the competition more so.


But you haven't explained why. Competition requires something that addresses people's sense of pride, and (generally) it requires some kind of public, comparative measure. This can be money, but it need not be.


But material measure is more meaningful than an abstract measure.


Only if you assume that market competition is the only kind of competition.


Not the only, but in my opinion, the best.


That's why it's important to say "we", not "I."

True, full individual freedom has always been impossible within society, but socialism allows us to be free as a public. We can work and consume in the economy we collectively choose for ourselves.

Consider it in the sense of voting you reference above, and you'll see the point: in each individual's case, we may not seem any more free, but viewed collectively it is clear we are. What we must give of ourselves, we gain from everyone else--as is a necessity in the case of freedom within society, where private objectives conflict with one another.


Still, even if you don't have control over the economy, I don't think this removes your power, you can control other things, such as influence and ideas. Possibly even attitudes towards different types of workers.


Well, again, card games just aren't that important to most people's lives. They fail the first criterion of competition I mentioned above: they don't deal with our pride much. They also fail the second, in that our society relies, for the external display of success, very exclusively on money.

Fine, it was never meant to be a perfect analogy though.

They do think that with money however.

They think that if you enjoy eating money you necessarily will kill someone to achieve that end?

That's just silly

I think the OP is broadly right, in the sense that people are essentially lazy unless they have something to motivate them; and the most simple motivating influence is money. A communist society (and for that matter, most public sector organisations) will tend to be less inclined to innovation or efficiency simply because there's no need to bother.

As far as I can see though that's only a general tendency rather than a necessary outcome. It's quite possible to have industrious, inventive people working for the common good who are not motivated by personal reward - they're just not very common.

They think that if you enjoy eating money you necessarily will kill someone to achieve that end?

That's just silly

http://www.adhurl.com/uploads/man_eating_money-thumb.jpg

... fear them.

But usually the non material competition is over comparatively trivial things, they are not necessarily going to put in huge amounts of hours of incredibly hard work just to compete without any material gain. There are exceptions of course, such as when the activity is already inherently competitive or enjoyable generally even when putting in huge amounts of work, such as sports.
I think you've rebutted your own point. Since we're on a computer, we can use NSG as an example. There are some people who spend thousands of hours on here for no material gain. World of Warcraft is another solid computer examples.
Most people who are smart and creative enough to make scientific breakthroughs, like science for science itself. They don't need the cash incentive. If anything, if you have some scientist friends, ask them how much they hate dealing with the "suits".

Spain is a socialist country and so far, technology has never been a problem and advancements have never been banned or slowed down.

Spain is a socialist country and so far, technology has never been a problem and advancements have never been banned or slowed down.

For one thing, Spain is not known as for it technologival advancements. For another, we're talking about central planning, mareket socialism, Parecon, ect and not the social welfare state of many capitalist countries.

For one thing, Spain is not known as for it technologival advancements. For another, we're talking about central planning, mareket socialism, Parecon, ect and not the social welfare state of many capitalist countries.But there is one excellent example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation) of something that Spain does have that is relevant to the thread.

But there is one excellent example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation) of something that Spain does have that is relevant to the thread.

Ah, the ¨Corporación Cooperativa Mondragón¨. Good example there.;)
http://www.mcc.es/ing/index.asp

But there is one excellent example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation) of something that Spain does have that is relevant to the thread.

It still competes with other businesses - the point was that a lack of competition slows advance.

This is an unfair comparison. Competition between Japanese firms is weak, but competition between Japanese and international firms is intense, especially carmakers and electronics firms. Its hardly surprising that exports are one of the only growth sectors in the Japanese economy - the domestic economy is hideously stagnant in part due to companies deliberately not competing with each other. In the end, its the Japanese consumer who suffers.

:D Finally - somebody who understands Japan. (I've lived here through the lost decade. Japan is emphatically not the lovely socialist example some folks want it to be.)

I think you've rebutted your own point. Since we're on a computer, we can use NSG as an example. There are some people who spend thousands of hours on here for no material gain. World of Warcraft is another solid computer examples.


But I come on here for enjoyment. Business, when you put thousands of hours into it, tends to be very repetitive, and not very enjoyable. Another point is that when the only thing you are competing against is yourself, it is not very competitive.


Most people who are smart and creative enough to make scientific breakthroughs, like science for science itself. They don't need the cash incentive. If anything, if you have some scientist friends, ask them how much they hate dealing with the "suits".

See further into the debate, I acknowledge that science does not necessarily require competition, but other things do.

no, in a communist system you would have more development of technology that in a capitalistic system. There would be joint research teams constantly looking for improvements/inventions, working together in a combined effort rather than each to his own. Science and development should be about getting the most results not the most credit/profit out of it. Team work is always better than individual work, because you can feed off others' ideas and make the best end result.

no, in a communist system you would have more development of technology that in a capitalistic system. There would be joint research teams constantly looking for improvements/inventions, working together in a combined effort rather than each to his own. Science and development should be about getting the most results not the most credit/profit out of it. Team work is always better than individual work, because you can feed off others' ideas and make the best end result.

First of all, Capatalism doesn't mean scientitst work alone. Plus, you'd be surprised how many major discoveries were made by guys just dicking around in their root cellars with random chemicals.

Second, do you really think that more gets done when people just decide to help each other? Was the computer that you are using made for you because everyone at the computer factory wanted you to have a computer? Was your lunch grown/produced and delivered to you by farmers because they wanted you to try their food? Trade, transportation, goods, services are almost all sold to you because people want your money, not because they want to enrich the world we live in. People are motivated by selfish desires. Greed is what makes economies function 100 times better than socialism and thats fine. If, for some super-sticious reason, you happen to think thats evil or immoral. Then go set up a hippie commune where everybody helps each other and don't participate in the free market. It should be a loving utopia right?

Learn something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU)

First of all, Capatalism doesn't mean scientitst work alone. Plus, you'd be surprised how many major discoveries were made by guys just dicking around in their root cellars with random chemicals.

Second, do you really think that more gets done when people just decide to help each other? Was the computer that you are using made for you because everyone at the computer factory wanted you to have a computer? Was your lunch grown/produced and delivered to you by farmers because they wanted you to try their food? Trade, transportation, goods, services are almost all sold to you because people want your money, not because they want to enrich the world we live in. People are motivated by selfish desires. Greed is what makes economies function 100 times better than socialism and thats fine. If, for some super-sticious reason, you happen to think thats evil or immoral. Then go set up a hippie commune where everybody helps each other and don't participate in the free market. It should be a loving utopia right?

Learn something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU)

haha whoa sounds like someone has some kind of personal thing against socialism. Yes I think more gets done in a socialist system. But this thread isn't about that but about whether it hinders technological/scientific advancement.

no, in a communist system you would have more development of technology that in a capitalistic system. There would be joint research teams constantly looking for improvements/inventions, working together in a combined effort rather than each to his own. Science and development should be about getting the most results not the most credit/profit out of it. Team work is always better than individual work, because you can feed off others' ideas and make the best end result.
That depends entirely on what sort of socialism you're talking about.

If you're talking state socialism, then it's not all that different to capitalism. But because companies don't compete with each other they don't have their own research departments. Instead there are state-controlled research facilities that produce the things the government wants. Chances are that a lot of useless stuff will be worked on and a lot of useful stuff will not.

If you're talking communism, then scarcity has already been eliminated, which means no research short of things like life extension will have a point. If we can all have anything we want at any time at no cost to us or society, then what reason is there to improve the way anything is done?

And if you're talking some sort of libertarian socialism, then the question is one of resource allocation. People need to be picked to be scientists and researchers, which is a physically easier job (the only form of "easier" socialists have no problem understanding) and therefore more desirable for a large proportion of the community. So you need a meeting to decide who gets to wear the lab coat (and I don't think rotation is realistic here...), which may well be decided by oratory skills rather than laboratory ones. Then the researchers want to do research, but since in this society no one ever enjoys any degree of autonomy, they can't decide what to actually work on. So there needs to be another meeting in which all the people that were just decreed not to be suitable for a role in research must tell the researchers what to do.

People need to be picked to be scientists and researchers, which is a physically easier job (the only form of "easier" socialists have no problem understanding) and therefore more desirable for a large proportion of the community. So you need a meeting to decide who gets to wear the lab coat (and I don't think rotation is realistic here...)
which may well be decided by oratory skills rather than laboratory ones. Then the researchers want to do research, but since in this society no one ever enjoys any degree of autonomy, they can't decide what to actually work on. So there needs to be another meeting in which all the people that were just decreed not to be suitable for a role in research must tell the researchers what to do.

Generally you are correct. The way I see it, a system is set up where individuals present their ideas to a committee that awards research grants allocating available resources to the most important/most promising research.

Generally you are correct. The way I see it, a system is set up where individuals present their ideas to a committee that awards research grants allocating available resources to the most important/most promising research.
Or the researcher with the biggest boobies...;)

Or the researcher with the biggest boobies...;)Not that capitalism is immune to such influences.

Not that capitalism is immune to such influences.
Not immune, but for the capitalist there is more at stake when making such decisions. It's a question of the potential payoffs.

Oh for fuck's sake...when will people stop thinking with ideology and start thinking with reality?

Because if reality is the gas pedal of life, then ideology is the steering wheel. Try thinking with both. ;)

Or the researcher with the biggest boobies...;)

yes that would also qualify as valid criteria.

Not immune, but for the capitalist there is more at stake when making such decisions. It's a question of the potential payoffs....and for the person whom the capitalist hires to manage the employment of new people?

And if you're talking some sort of libertarian socialism, then the question is one of resource allocation. People need to be picked to be scientists and researchers, which is a physically easier job (the only form of "easier" socialists have no problem understanding) and therefore more desirable for a large proportion of the community. So you need a meeting to decide who gets to wear the lab coat (and I don't think rotation is realistic here...), which may well be decided by oratory skills rather than laboratory ones. Then the researchers want to do research, but since in this society no one ever enjoys any degree of autonomy, they can't decide what to actually work on. So there needs to be another meeting in which all the people that were just decreed not to be suitable for a role in research must tell the researchers what to do.

wow, that sounds awful. good thing it doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what we propose, eh?

http://www.adhurl.com/uploads/man_eating_money-thumb.jpg

GENTLEMEN

...and for the person whom the capitalist hires to manage the employment of new people?
Will lose his job if he does this.

wow, that sounds awful. good thing it doesn't bear much resemblance at all to what we propose, eh?
You don't know what it is you propose. That's the only explanation for why I never actually get to hear it.

You don't know what it is you propose. That's the only explanation for why I never actually get to hear it.

are you honestly claiming to not have been hit with book suggestions, the faq, and dozens and dozens of answers to particular questions on here from me, S, A, BO, JB, etc?

are you honestly claiming to not have been hit with book suggestions, the faq, and dozens and dozens of answers to particular questions on here from me, S, A, BO, JB, etc?
It would help if you made up your mind, to say the least. I get the occasional glimpse of an explanation, which is then sidestepped next time on a different topic.

One day private property is not allowed because any exclusive decision over a resource involves massive externalities and must therefore be a social decision (which was what I described in my post), the next day I completely miss the point.

I'm gonna start a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552527) and see whether I can get it out of you guys.