Inventors

[Susurrus]

So I'm trying to fit inventors/tech people in a class.
So bourgeoisie = benefit from exchange, do not produce anything themselves
petit-bourgeoisie= produce and benefit from exchange
proletariat = produce

If an inventor comes up with an invention and sells the patent, then he's producing and benefiting from the exchange of what he produces, so petit-bourgeois.

If an inventor comes up with an invention and starts a business where he works in the process of production and employs others, still petit-bourgeois. This applies to tech start-ups, since the inventor is still doing work on the software as well as hiring others to do so as well.

Here's the bit that's got me stuck: What if an inventor makes an invention, starts up a business to produce it, but does not participate in the process of production, other than making the invention? Are they petit-bourgeois because they participate in the sense of making the invention ie intellectual work, or bourgeois since they don't participate in the process afterwards?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

From what I understand most inventors sell their product to a corporation then are paid occasionally pending on sales.Plus most inventors continuously need to submit more ideas if they want to remain financially stable just from inventing.I would say this makes them proletarian.

In your latter question that would make them bourgeois since they are not working and employ people.

[Susurrus]

From what I understand most inventors sell their product to a corporation then are paid occasionally pending on sales.Plus most inventors continuously need to submit more ideas if they want to remain financially stable just from inventing.I would say this makes them proletarian.

In your latter question that would make them bourgeois since they are not working and employ people.

Ah, but rather than selling their labour-time, they are selling a commodity, their invention, thus petit-bourgeosie.

That's the thing though, would putting in the labour to create the invention in the first place count as being part of production, or would that be a separate process and not count?

[Tablo]

Ah, but rather than selling their labour-time, they are selling a commodity, their invention, thus petit-bourgeosie.

That's the thing though, would putting in the labour to create the invention in the first place count as being part of production, or would that be a separate process and not count?
I think that would count as part of production.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wouldn't count it as part of production because it is a one time thing only and unless this one product makes them millions they will have to invent other devices.

[Tablo]

I think it depends. Some times inventors produce a very specialized product with industrial purposes and only makes a few to be used around the world. On the other hand some make one product which a company buys and mass produces. It depends on the situation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Excellent question, and there is a practical conundrum here for Socialists, in terms of how we fit inventors into our class analysis.

It is true that, technically, inventors currently can only really make money by either starting their own businesses and getting filthy rich off of their inventions, or leeching off of all future sales (i.e. royalties) and thereby taking a surplus from consumers.

But, it is also clear that inventors, innovators etc. are the life-blood of human development. Imagine the innovative spirit that must have been present for the Cuban biotech/medicinal industry to come up with vaccines against Hepatitis and a treatment for lung cancer into a chronic disease?

The key is to separate innovative invention, from entrepreneurial invention, the distinction being that the former exists to serve a need (e.g. electricity, water filters, the car, and so on), whereas the latter exists to serve the profit motive (inventing a Zen, for example, when there is already an iPod).

[graymouser]

Typically, the people inventing things are in the petty bourgeoisie attempting to catapult themselves upward into the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Of course this is one of several ways (public funding of university research departments is another) that the bourgeoisie shifts the cost of innovation off of itself, all the while claiming that the capitalist system alone drives innovation.

I think we need to think about open source software when we discuss this, because here is a model where people innovate outside of the profit system and do so as a personal project. If we could make this model work at a society-wide level, and make it so people's jobs were to create open-source software, I think you have an example right now of what a socialist model of innovation and invention could look like.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Exactly^^

The problem we face with innovation right now is that, within the current economic framework, innovation is only 'worth the innovator's while' so to speak, if it is entrepreneurial, in general.

There has to be some sort of incentive mechanism that is more altruistic, for innovation.

[Nox]

I'd say they are bourgeoisie, because by getting a royalty fee on the sales they are benefitting from the labour of the workers without doing any work themselves.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think we need to think about open source software when we discuss this, because here is a model where people innovate outside of the profit system and do so as a personal project. If we could make this model work at a society-wide level, and make it so people's jobs were to create open-source software, I think you have an example right now of what a socialist model of innovation and invention could look like.

That, and some sort of society-run Science and Technology organization where the innovators can work for typical labour compensation while society captures the economic rent associated with intellectual property. It's too bad Kalashnikov didn't belong to such an organization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That, and some sort of society-run Science and Technology organization where the innovators can work for typical labour compensation while society captures the economic rent associated with intellectual property. It's too bad Kalashnikov didn't belong to such an organization.

Why not just abolish intellectual property?

Who would the surplus go to? 'Society' is a concept, not an actual existing institution, per se.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That, and some sort of society-run Science and Technology organization where the innovators can work for typical labour compensation while society captures the economic rent associated with intellectual property. It's too bad Kalashnikov didn't belong to such an organization.

In fact, thinking about this again, is this not the most explicit form of State Capitalism? :confused::rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why not just abolish intellectual property?

Who would the surplus go to? 'Society' is a concept, not an actual existing institution, per se.

I do call for abolition of at least most IP as reform (leaving only things like academic copyright behind, guarding against plagiarism).


In fact, thinking about this again, is this not the most explicit form of State Capitalism? :confused::rolleyes:

Where did you get that idea? :confused:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I do call for abolition of at least most IP as reform (leaving only things like academic copyright behind, guarding against plagiarism).



Where did you get that idea? :confused:

Your first point makes no sense.

Your second point, you say: "That, and some sort of society-run Science and Technology organization where the innovators can work for typical labour compensation while society captures the economic rent associated with intellectual property. It's too bad Kalashnikov didn't belong to such an organization."

What you are basically saying is that inventors should sell their labour to a society-run organisation, rather than a privately-run organisation, whilst 'society' would take the surplus. Presumably, society would be in the form of the state, so basically the labourer would simply become exploited by the state, rather than private individuals, hence 'State Capitalism', as opposed to 'Free Market Capitalism'.

You've come up with a mechanism that essentially prolongs exploitative labour relations, as you seem to have no plan to abolish surplus/rent/interest. No abolition of labour exploitation, no Socialism, comrade.:thumbdown:

[Zav]

It all depends on what is done with the product. If a programmer writes an awesome script for Unix and gives it away freely, ze is part of the proletariat. If ze gives it a shareware license, or, forbid, Apple's license, ze is petit-bourgeois. Since the programmer makes the product, ze really cant be considered bourgeois no matter how much money is made, by the OPs definition. Personally I draw the line at one million euros annually.

[wildjap]

I agree with Zav. Anyway, if nobody invented anything, we'd be in the dark ages still! No medicine, computers, revleft.... :D

[leemadison11]

Now days many inventors in the tech industry are putting their product for open source which means that anyone can do mod with it and get some patent on it. But what is really happening is that its a pyramid effect of more and more people coming together and sharing knowledge which is leading to reduction of cost on developing inventions and marketing of them. Android and Google products like Chrome book and Chromium OS are result of this approach.