Development of scientific projects in a communist society

[Lobotomy]

I feel like with capitalism, scientists are seemingly always trying to get grant money for a new research project, but that money can only come from a corporation or a similar entity and only if its findings could potentially benefit that particular entity. This obviously does not benefit human progress as a whole. In a socialist society, then, how would the community decide what scientific or technological avenues to pursue? Would a scientist or researcher pitch an idea to a co-op (or multiple co-ops) that have the means to carry out whatever research is needed, and then have the co-ops democratically decide if the idea is worthy of exploration? Or would it occur by a different process?

[Lunatic Concept]

Well you could have groups of scientists free to study and advance as they will paid for by the state, while you could have other groups who are paid/encouraged when advances are needed in certain areas of technology that need rapid and focused development. Dunno.

[Lunatic Concept]

Youd think more people would reply to this:confused:

[Rooster]

Well, I think it'd be like having an open workshop. You go in and do what you want to do. You know, not having to slave away all day to earn your capitalist money, you'd have more time on your hands to study and do things you'd want to do. Why not just have open labs and such where you can go and just experiment and talk to other like minded people? Without the actual pressure of trying to get a meaningless degree so that you can fit into the petty-bourgeois world.

[MapOfYourHead]

The problem with capitalist funded research is the research is not always in the best interest of the many. Therefore, it is in my opinion that in a communist society research of interest will be brought forward to a collective of knowledge working in the best interest of the people, with options then chosen democratically.

Open workshops, although an interesting idea, would probably only unnecessarily lengthen the estimated research time, causing backlogs of problems that need to be dealt with.


I would like to hear more opinions on this subject more than some others, as it would prevent technological stagnation.

[Rooster]

I'm not sure how the open workshop idea would cause any more problems in research as compared to the current model. I can only really comment from my own experiences, but most scientific research that I've come across is done in universities. If you were doing an experiment or doing a paper, you could just go in to a lab and do it.

As for democratically asking everyone what research should be done.... hmmm. I'd think you'd have to spend half the time informing most people what it is you're doing rather than just doing it. And besides, any scientific research is good research, right?

[MarxSchmarx]

Likely the most promising model that exists today is the open-source movement in software development that have open collaboration - but open source works in large part because (1) it is software and capital investment is comparatively low and (2) projects are in fact funded by both foundations, government and large capitalist firms.

There will of course be limited resources for scientific research even after capitalism, and apart from democratically deciding how to maximize the returns on the limited resources there are few viable alternatives. This is particularly true for r&d in some fields of engineering, agriculture, mining, and medicine.

A lot of the big breakthroughs in the less lucrative but less expensive "pure" sciences (e.g., cosmology, mathematics) will be conducted by people solving academic problems in their free time using resources open to all - which they will have plenty of. Perhaps the exception would be stuff like the particle collider that are enormously expensive which individuals will have to get community approval for access, and I can imagine academic departments being replaced by hobby clubs that oversee education and credentialling, and that are compliments to people's other jobs.

As far as the argument that scientists must be specialists devoting their limited resources goes, it cannot be taken seriously because apart from a very, very limited number of scientists in places like Bell Labs, most practicing scientists teach at universities or manage other researchers - tasks which easily take up a large fraction of their time.

[FreeFocus]

Yeah, they're going to have to pitch their idea if they need resources to carry it out. If a community decides to sponsor it, they would produce and allot the required resources to the project. MarxSchmarx also put forth a good idea about the open-source movement. Today, under capitalism, people want the fame and fortune for themselves when they discover something. If I were a scientist under communism I might still want the fame, of course, but there wouldn't be any fortune to be gotten. I think respect, accolades, and knowing that you helped people and advanced science is more than enough motivation to discover, research, and improve things.

[Amphictyonis]

Lets say an inventor or scientist had tangible concrete thoughts on a way to develop cars that run on water or free energy for all households do you think they'd get funding? They'd probably be killed if anything (by oil or energy corporations). Usually things that would impact capitalism get labeled as 'kooky' or simply don't get funded. These are things which would benefit mankind without the possibility of profits. I could give various examples if I had time-perhaps I'll come back to this thread and edit it later.

[Rooster]

Lets say an inventor or scientist had tangible concrete thoughts on a way to develop cars that run on water or free energy for all households do you think they'd get funding? They'd probably be killed if anything (by oil or energy corporations). Usually things that would impact capitalism get labeled as 'kooky' or simply don't get funded. These are things which would benefit mankind without the possibility of profits. I could give various examples if I had time-perhaps I'll come back to this thread and edit it later.

When I was a student, there were experiments on hydrogen fuel cells (basically powering cars on water). The research actually goes on and it isn't really crippled at all by the profit motive. I think the main thing that's holding back this research being implemented is the cost of putting it into practice. A great deal of seemingly useless things are being worked on right now. They probably won't get put into practice though because an application hasn't been found yet. Remember that commodities must have a use value.

[Sensible Socialist]

Lets say an inventor or scientist had tangible concrete thoughts on a way to develop cars that run on water or free energy for all households do you think they'd get funding? They'd probably be killed if anything (by oil or energy corporations). Usually things that would impact capitalism get labeled as 'kooky' or simply don't get funded. These are things which would benefit mankind without the possibility of profits. I could give various examples if I had time-perhaps I'll come back to this thread and edit it later.
I remember seeing countless small-scale inventions on the news that would do a lot of good (new power/fuel sources, for example) and then, six months later, wondering "what happened?"