A question about how research and development is handled in a communist nation

[thethinkingchimp]

Here in the US alot of research projects are funded by private capitalists.The companies are large, and can afford the risks of investment in research, where the working class cannot. Even the military leaves a portion of it's R+D to the private sector, allowing companies like Lockheed Martin spend their own money to come up with a good product the military will want to buy.

My question is: How will R+D for new technologies be handled in a communist nation.

Please don't flame me out for being new, help me become a better communist:)

[BakuninFan]

The wealth would be granted either by the state or by a collective proletariat; all people working towards that goal would be enough to fund really anything.

[amandevsingh]

I doubt many people would flame you out.

I figure it would go much the same as procedure goes. There is no need for donations/funding in a Communism, as there will be no money! :lol: So the R+D will have access to any resources they need.

[BakuninFan]

Yes, but that is in the communistic, stateless, post-revolutionary phase.

Just because there is no money doesnt mean that there would be no production needed...like I said, a collective workforce/population producing towards goals.

[samizdat]

This portion of a communist regime might be best left to a committee of technocrats.

[JJM 777]

A society will always need to reserve a share of its national product for maintenance of the existing infrastructure, building new infrastructure, as well as scientific research and product design etc. No mystery there, unless you want to get stuck in decade X while the rest of the world moves forward and soon starts laughing at your "Socialist state".

I think that money will always exist, also in Socialism. How else will you quickly monitor on a national scale the distribution of resources, unless you convert services and commodities to a monetary value, be it how virtual as ever?

Example: the state can afford to offer 60 sqm housing per person, and a car, and a holiday travel package once a year to a nice beach resort.

- Person A wants to have all these three services, in their average size.

- Person B wants to travel twice a year, so he sgrees to take a smaller home of 30 sqm.

Is this economically just that person B gets two travel packages and a 30 sqm smaller home? The quick and easy answer to such daily questions (on a massive national scale with millions of people concerned, and the limitations of the national economy restricting the choices that are available) can be found only by setting a monetary value to each service, so each person can collect a service palette worth the average total "sum", even if no money actually exists anywhere. Which would be necessary though when travelling abroad, as the entire world would not be Socialist.

[red cat]

A society will always need to reserve a share of its national product for maintenance of the existing infrastructure, building new infrastructure, as well as scientific research and product design etc. No mystery there, unless you want to get stuck in decade X while the rest of the world moves forward and soon starts laughing at your "Socialist state".

I think that money will always exist, also in Socialism. How else will you quickly monitor on a national scale the distribution of resources, unless you convert services and commodities to a monetary value, be it how virtual as ever?

Example: the state can afford to offer 60 sqm housing per person, and a car, and a holiday travel package once a year to a nice beach resort.

- Person A wants to have all these three services, in their average size.

- Person B wants to travel twice a year, so he sgrees to take a smaller home of 30 sqm.

Is this economically just that person B gets two travel packages and a 30 sqm smaller home? The quick and easy answer to such daily questions (on a massive national scale with millions of people concerned, and the limitations of the national economy restricting the choices that are available) can be found only by setting a monetary value to each service, so each person can collect a service palette worth the average total "sum", even if no money actually exists anywhere. Which would be necessary though when travelling abroad, as the entire world would not be Socialist.

First of all, communism can come only after each and every place in the world has exprienced a socialist revolution, followed by a prolonged class struggle for erasing the remnants of bourgeois culture, politics and economy totally. Therefore the whole world goes communist together.

Secondly, since the production capability of the society will then be almost infinite compared to that of now, your example cannot be used to judge it.

Lastly, judging the contradictions of a society that is so far away is quite impossible with modern parameters. However, for a naive try, we can say that in case of some accidental deficit in resources, intellectual circles( ultimately the whole society then) will elect projects according to their importance, from the bottom up.

[JJM 777]

Muslims believe that Islamic faith will eventually conquer the whole world.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their faith will eventually fill the whole earth.

Well I don't have such Messianic allusions. I believe that a remarkable share of humans will always have the greed or adventurous mind to prefer Capitalism to Socialism.

If I can choose to build a Socialist state that includes all humans on the planet by force, or build a Socialist state that includes only those humans who wants to participate in Socialism, I would choose the latter option and leave Capitalists outside to form their own countires. Forcing people to do what they totally disagree with is not a good idea in politics, it is much easier to let dissenters go away and do what they want in their own land.

[Psy]

A Communist society would plan large research/development projects like the military (for example how DARPA planed how much money to throw at developing computers,electronics and networking) but instead of planning based on budgets of money planning based on budgets of resources.

[Robocommie]

The Soviet Union had design bureaus, for example, the Mikoyan-i-Gurevich design bureau who were responsible for designing a great deal of fighter aircraft for the Soviet air force. (hence MiG fighters)

They worked like "think tanks" with engineers and scientists who would be provided with limited workshops and production facilities in order to produce prototypes, and successful designs were then sent to the factories for mass production.

They worked pretty well, although the lion's share of their use was unfortunately for the military, still the concept is pretty sound I think and would be a good model for the future.

[RotStern]

I was also wondering about this myself.
If somebody comes up with some amazing invention that they can make billions of what is stopping them from going to a capitalist country :confused:

[Robocommie]

I was also wondering about this myself.
If somebody comes up with some amazing invention that they can make billions of what is stopping them from going to a capitalist country :confused:

Well, some of the great innovators in history didn't care about getting rich. Jonas Salk, for instance, when he developed the polio vaccine, didn't patent it because he wanted it getting out to the people quickly. Regardless of his personal political views, which I am unaware of, I think this fact alone makes Salk a hero for Socialists, and a model of innovation in a post-capitalist society.

[JJM 777]

If somebody comes up with some amazing invention that they can make billions of what is stopping them from going to a capitalist country
When Socialist and Capitalist countries coexist side by side, a person in Capitalist country can flee to the Socialist country with his inventions, if he is unemployed or self-employed or otherwise can prove that he owns his inventions alone. If a person in Socialist country flees to a Capitalist country, according to current laws the Socialist country could legally argue that the copyrights are owned by the previous employer of the person, namely the Socialist state. And the Capitalist state would probably honour this law, because it is an important law for Capitalists.

The current laws say that inventions done at work or (under certain conditions) while one has a work contract, will be property of the employer (who whould have guessed?). If an employee makes an invention and then quits his job, there is a time limit of several years before he can publish the invention as his own property. Otherwise there can be lawsuits that an invention published soon after quitting work was actually done at work and not after the work ended.