Can we quantify how much capitalism has impeded technological progress?

[kerryhall]

It seems pretty clear that capitalism is holding back the progress of humanity, through patents, etc. Do we know exactly how bad this is? Could we make a statement like "If it weren't for capitalism, we would all have electric cars by now"? Have studies been done on this? Is there any leaflets or articles that discuss this?

I'm sick of people saying communism would hold back the progress of technology.

[CommunityBeliever]

Do we know exactly how bad this is?

The main means I know of to quantify this is to enumerate technological solutions that were available for use, yet weren't implemented by the capitalists.

For example, in the area of energy technology capitalists are obsessed with their uranium assests, such that that they have failed for decades to explore other nuclear solutions like thorium-fission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8) and nuclear fusion. We would be lightyears ahead in energy technology by now if the capitalists were out of the way.

The area of information technology, on the other hand, is one of the most blatant cases of capitalist failure. We have so many solutions available that haven't been implemented its hard to enumerate them. Perhaps most importantly, the AI winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter) marked the death of the AI industry. It still hasn't recovered.

[Black_Rose]

I will repost this:

There are a few people, namely Peter Thiel, Michael Mandel, and Tyler Cowen, who advance the thesis that the global economy is now experiencing an innovation crisis. Thiel, a libertarian, uses this opportunity to rail on the government stifling innovation, and recommends more free market prescriptions to nurture an innovative environment.

Mentioned here: http://vimeo.com/7339317 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://vimeo.com/7339317) (Thiel on the Singularity an Macroeconomics)

http://vimeo.com/30022734 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://vimeo.com/30022734) (another video)

http://www.leveragingideas.com/2009/...y-summit-talk/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.leveragingideas.com/2009/10/04/notes-peter-thiel-singularity-summit-talk/) (a written summary on the singularity talk)
----

Thiel cites a lack of innovation in the fields of transportation, energy, medicine, and education, and this is manifested in low wages and low interest rates. (Of course, information technology and computer hardware is remarkably successful.) So much for the dross of the Chase commercials that proclaim "that's a step forward". Fucking financial parasites!

I agree with Thiel's macroeconomic thesis that innovation indeed stagnated. In the field of transportation, he noted that transportation hasn't increased, the last greatest advance available to consumers the Concorde jet and it is limited to wealthy individuals and only able to travel in unpopulated areas (and look how crowded urban freeways are during the work week)
-----

I don't consider iPhones to be innovative; maybe i conflate innovation with product that actually make life easier and remove stress which is just a semantic definition of innovation. Hell, even conservative sources criticize the notion that Steve Jobs was a great inventor.

Here are some articles concerning the field of medicine:
http://robertfortner.posterous.com/i...ill-we-be-able (http://www.anonym.to/?http://robertfortner.posterous.com/if-heart-drugs-keep-improving-will-we-be-able)
http://robertfortner.posterous.com/t...s-in-depressio (http://www.anonym.to/?http://robertfortner.posterous.com/the-contours-of-medical-progress-in-depressio)
https://ub.cbm.uam.es/publications/t...2011/intro.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?https://ub.cbm.uam.es/publications/teaching/curso_verano_uah_2011/intro.pdf) (Bernard Munoz, lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovations; shows diminishing returns of new chemical entities that made it to the market per dollar spent. a notable point he made that regulation increases standards and encourages innovation since pharma companies are the few enterprises that have the capital to finance large trials which act as a barrier to entry. Now, pharma companies have to compete with older drugs with similar mechanisms or use a different target on a given disease.) __________________

[blah]

The main means I know of to quantify this is to enumerate technological solutions that were available for use, yet weren't implemented by the capitalists.

For example, in the area of energy technology capitalists are obsessed with their uranium assests, such that that they have failed for decades to explore other nuclear solutions like /link/ and nuclear fusion. We would be lightyears ahead in energy technology by now if the capitalists were out of the way.

The area of information technology, on the other hand, is one of the most blatant cases of capitalist failure. We have so many solutions available that haven't been implemented its hard to enumerate them. Perhaps most importantly, the /link/ marked the death of the AI industry. It still hasn't recovered.

But is it a failure of capitalism, as opposed to socialism?
If means of production were owned by the workers, would humanity have chosen to pursue thorium over uranium, and would humanity have chosen to pursue Lisp/expert systems over PCs?

[Pustelnik]

It seems pretty clear that capitalism is holding back the progress of humanity, through patents, etc. Do we know exactly how bad this is? Could we make a statement like "If it weren't for capitalism, we would all have electric cars by now"? Have studies been done on this? Is there any leaflets or articles that discuss this?

I'm sick of people saying communism would hold back the progress of technology.

Why would we need electric cars at all ? Bcycles are well enough for me, walking is not bad either.

[sulla]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the inpression that capitalism fueled techological progress up untill the late 19th century, and then started to retard it. (When it got to the point that scientific research needs more cordinated ceneralised funding. The state only seemed interested in driving research during the two world wars.)

[Psy]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the inpression that capitalism fueled techological progress up untill the late 19th century, and then started to retard it. (When it got to the point that scientific research needs more cordinated ceneralised funding. The state only seemed interested in driving research during the two world wars.)
The problem is that research and development required more and more means of production as technology developed thus R&D has required more and more labor value yet advances did not necessarily lead to significantly more surplus value then what was invested.

The reason is simple fixed capital, when there was less fixed capital it was easier to modernize means of production yet as fixed capital grows it becomes a obstacle to modernization. A good example was railways quickly modernized to diesel away from steam because it was easy to simply buy new diesel locomotives as the steam locomotives reached the end of the life span yet electrification not so much as it requires all new infrastructure that does nothing for train that are not electric, and the only railways the really electrified were those owned by a state. Same with high speed rail, the first railways to really research and develop high speed rail was JNR,SNCF, Deutsche Bundesbahn and RZhD the national railways of Japan, France, West Germany and USSR as they were the only railways there willing to swallow massive losses for expensive modernizing of infrastructure ontop of massive R&D costs.

[piet11111]

Why would we need electric cars at all ? Bcycles are well enough for me, walking is not bad either.

Good look delivering a piano on your bicycle.

Cars will always be necessary for delivering such bulky goods as we can not and must not build a trainstation at every doorstep.

[blah]

Why would we need electric cars at all ? Bcycles are well enough for me, walking is not bad either.

Arent luddites restricted over here?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not sure that technological crisis - if we are in one - is due to the failures of the free market, as opposed to the failures inherent in the political element of a class system, which Capitalism certainly is.

It's really difficult to advance an economic story pinpointing Capitalism as an impediment to technical innovation, when only 200 - 300 years ago, Capitalism was the most revolutionary ideology on earth, producing some of the great technical innovations of the time.

[Psy]

Good look delivering a piano on your bicycle.

Cars will always be necessary for delivering such bulky goods as we can not and must not build a trainstation at every doorstep.

You don't need a train station to load/unload a train they can and in a number cases are done at track side with forklifts just driving up to a flatbed and lifting the load off or going the other way and dropping a load on a flatbed I've worked at a factory were they just had a train loading yard made out of gravel where diesel forklifts did just that as it was cheaper.

Meaning technically a piano could be placed on a flatbed pulled by a streetcar that stops in front the house and a lift built into the flatbed lowers it down to the street (or you can have a built in hoist to lift it off the flatbed and drop it on the road) and workers can then push the piano to the house.

Of course that would only work for homes that have a streetcar line going by them and even then it would cause delays on the line but technically it would be possible.

[piet11111]

He is against electric cars logic would follow that he would be against forklifts and flatbeds too.

Trains where just an example of transportation that is not a road going vehicle.
Only if he is a consistent luddite would he also oppose trains.

[Psy]

My point is is possible to have people living in a industrial society without owning a car as public transit and deliveries covers most of their transit demands and when it doesn't they can easily rent a car.

Really theoretically it is possible to have a communist city where all road vehicles operate by overhead catenary wires since if electricity is free why not just let all vehicles draw from overhead wires?

But yhea I don't see a industrial society being able to operate with bicycles being the primary means of travel.

[Conscript]

Planned obsolescence is endemic in capitalism, while there is still may be progress technologically, usually the products have a planned expiration date before the next, extremely similar model comes out (or not at all and you just have to buy another original). For the bourgeoisie, simple population growth isn't enough demand growth for their products. People who bought them already must buy the next in line, lest their competitor beats them to the practice and gains a greater market share.

Market competition at its finest.

[Ocean Seal]

It seems pretty clear that capitalism is holding back the progress of humanity, through patents, etc. Do we know exactly how bad this is? Could we make a statement like "If it weren't for capitalism, we would all have electric cars by now"? Have studies been done on this? Is there any leaflets or articles that discuss this?

I'm sick of people saying communism would hold back the progress of technology.
Its impossible to say really. There's no reason to quantify it, when it is still happening. Capitalism is still holding back technological progress.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No, probably not.

Social science methodology used to determine what-ifs is shitty social science methodology. Either by Marxian terms or otherwise.

[Thirsty Crow]

Planned obsolescence is endemic in capitalism, while there is still may be progress technologically, usually the products have a planned expiration date before the next, extremely similar model comes out (or not at all and you just have to buy another original). For the bourgeoisie, simple population growth isn't enough demand growth for their products. People who bought them already must buy the next in line, lest their competitor beats them to the practice and gains a greater market share.

Market competition at its finest.
Do you now of any studies done on this phenomenon?

[Psy]

Its impossible to say really. There's no reason to quantify it, when it is still happening. Capitalism is still holding back technological progress.
Well there is the USSR, where Russia went from a backwards feudal society to the second most technically advanced and industrial nation on Earth in only a few decades. I don't see Argentina sending astronauts into space even though the USSR did that back in 1961 even though Argentina was far more advanced in 1917 then Russia was.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well there is the USSR, where Russia went from a backwards feudal society to the second most technically advanced and industrial nation on Earth in only a few decades. I don't see Argentina sending astronauts into space even though the USSR did that back in 1961 even though Argentina was far more advanced in 1917 then Russia was.

lol what, how are you comparing this? i.e. argentina 1917 v russia 1917

[∞]

The fact you can jailbreak your iphone and make it do things that they purposely wouldn't allow it to do.

[Psy]

lol what, how are you comparing this? i.e. argentina 1917 v russia 1917
Argentina in 1917 had a state of the art modern infrastructure to move commodities to port for export built by American capitalists thus Argentina had modern US technology in 1917 as American capitalists wanted to efficiently get commodities they produced in Argentina into American ports to maximize their profits. To put it another way, in 1917 most farmers in Argentina were wage slaves producing agricultural commodities for American capitalists, while in 1917 Russia most farmers were still peasants still producing for feudal lords.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Argentina in 1917 had a state of the art modern infrastructure to move commodities to port for export built by American capitalists thus Argentina had modern US technology in 1917 as American capitalists wanted to efficiently get commodities they produced in Argentina into American ports to maximize their profits. To put it another way, in 1917 most farmers in Argentina were wage slaves producing agricultural commodities for American capitalists, while in 1917 Russia most farmers were still peasants still producing for feudal lords.

That works if you're cherry-picking your selection for your end argument. How do you put gauchos, huge ranches, Araucanians, and those living in "feudal" structures in Argentina in the picture.

Look at it in another way, what foreign powers were extracting labor and commodities from Russia in 1917? What foreign powers continued to do so until 1961.

You can't be too prescriptive or teleological with this shit or you will be blown apart.

[Psy]

That works if you're cherry-picking your selection for your end argument. How do you put gauchos, huge ranches, Araucanians, and those living in "feudal" structures in Argentina in the picture.

After WWI the US and German bourgeoisie was infesting heavily in expanding and modernizing means of production in Argentina to feed their industry back home. Sure there were people in Argentina not yet proletarianized in 1917 but in Russia only a few were proletarianized in 1917 hell even when the Gaff Zeppelin 1929 flew over Russia most rural towns the people fled from it rather then run after it like in even rural town in Japan and Argentina as in both Japan and Argentina modernity had taken hold even in rural towns when the Gaff Zeppelin visited these countries.



Look at it in another way, what foreign powers were extracting labor and commodities from Russia in 1917? What foreign powers continued to do so until 1961.

Yet capitalist exploiting weak nations is part of capitalism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Again, what is your selection, what counts as proletarianized and what segment of the population was proletarianized? Compare that to Russia, accounting for differences in land area, places controlled directly by the state/capitalists vs. feudalists like (hacendados, a mexican word, i'm not sure about its argentinan comparison) or kulaks, etc.

You can't just go hammering out generalizations about historical process.

[Conscript]

Do you know of any studies done on this phenomenon?

No. There's not much to study though.

[Psy]

Again, what is your selection, what counts as proletarianized

A wage slave/capitalist relationship, rather then a caste system. To break up the property of lords and give them to capitalists to use to create surplus value in order to create more surplus value. So instead of a lord simply living off the labor his surfs that rather have a constant stream of surplus value you have a capitalists growing the surplus value.



and what segment of the population was proletarianized?

In Russia pretty much Moscow and Petrograd, in most of the landmass of Russia most were in a feudal caste system as capitalism didn't in Russia were in those cities as islands of capitalism in a sea of feudalism.

In Argentina all the arable land was quickly bought up by internal capitalists as capitalists didn't give a shit about Russian land back then yet Argentina land meant they could grow cash crops to sell back in the US market then there was the mining sector that capitalists where rapidly expanding at the time to feed American factories. So capitalists were knocking down Argentina's door to let them develop the means of production in Argentina in exchange for giving them title to said means of production and surplus value that came from them.



Compare that to Russia, accounting for differences in land area, places controlled directly by the state/capitalists vs. feudalists like (hacendados, a mexican word, i'm not sure about its argentinan comparison) or kulaks, etc.

The USSR started at such a disadvantage in 1923 if you also factor in the civil-war that Argentina was miles better off, as in 1923 you are talking about a USSR that can't feed its people or export enough commodities to generate any surplus value. Argentina was one the top 10 biggest economies in the world in the 1920's averaging 8% growth till 1929 when foreign investment just stopped. Now can you say in the 1920's the USSR's economy grew by 8% each year?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Technological progress does not happen because of shitty cappies. If it was not for the workers power, not even fart makers would have been made.

[OHumanista]

One of the area of scientific progress that is easy to see how it is halted in capitalism is healthcare. They only work on definitive cures and better medicine if it gives them a far better profit than what they're doing right now.

Another is energy/fuel. I once met a guy who had made a new type of engine who worked quite efficiently with water. Let us just say he was forced to end his research and never ever return to it. Because it would hurt the interests of oil industry.

[Yazman]

Arent luddites restricted over here?

That's ridiculous. Questioning the value of personal vehicles as opposed to mass transit or different forms of city planning doesn't make somebody a luddite.

[piet11111]

That's ridiculous. Questioning the value of personal vehicles as opposed to mass transit or different forms of city planning doesn't make somebody a luddite.

Agreed he hasn't shown himself to be a luddite yet.

[danyboy27]

It seems pretty clear that capitalism is holding back the progress of humanity, through patents, etc. Do we know exactly how bad this is? Could we make a statement like "If it weren't for capitalism, we would all have electric cars by now"? Have studies been done on this? Is there any leaflets or articles that discuss this?

I'm sick of people saying communism would hold back the progress of technology.

Capitalism dont hold back technology, it put the productive and innovative forces toward path that shouldnt necessarly be priorities.

It would be useless to try to look at how x technology would have evolved faster or slower on X economic system beccause its the past, no matter what you say you cant change it and your argumentation will remain pure speculations, mental masturbation.

what really matter is now, what do we have and what can we improve.

Right now we have both the technology and organisational systems at our disposal to overcome the limitations of capitalism by establishing communism, a more egalitarian, democratic and productive economic system.

[blah]

Let us just say he was forced to end his research and never ever return to it. Because it would hurt the interests of oil industry.

He probably lied, no such thing is possible. But if he really invented such thing and was threatened, he should release the complete plans anonymously through the internet. Or at least the general principle. But noone who makes such claims never does so... because its all fake :p

[RadioRaheem84]

Does anyone read Monthly Review? There was a whole long article about capitalism and science written by Harvard Public Health professor Richard Levins.

http://monthlyreview.org/2010/03/01/why-programs-fail

John Bellamy Foster dedicates most of his time to showing how Capitalism is now at a stage where it's a boundary to scientific, technological and environmental progress.

[28350]

we need some fucking germanium chips but the silicon business won't have any of it

[The Young Pioneer]

If it weren't for capitalism...

The premise, unfortunately, is ridiculous. Fact of the matter is, that capitalism exists.

I think learning why something like capitalism exists and how we could go about moving progressively away from there is much more productive than contemplating "what ifs" that never happened.

[piet11111]

The premise, unfortunately, is ridiculous. Fact of the matter is, that capitalism exists.

Its obvious that capitalism is holding back progress its failing to even keep the progress it made !

NASA is a good example of this as america is failing to even keep NASA's modest budget intact.

Then you could look at the crumbling infrastructure of the USA.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that pharmaceutical company's are more interested in the profit generating capability of a new generation of boner pills over a cure for AIDS.
Or how their vaccine mass production capacity wont be expanded unless governments pick up 100% of the costs.

[danyboy27]

Its obvious that capitalism is holding back progress its failing to even keep the progress it made !

NASA is a good example of this as america is failing to even keep NASA's modest budget intact.

Then you could look at the crumbling infrastructure of the USA.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that pharmaceutical company's are more interested in the profit generating capability of a new generation of boner pills over a cure for AIDS.
Or how their vaccine mass production capacity wont be expanded unless governments pick up 100% of the costs.
NASA got its budget cut and the U.S got a crumbling infrastructure beccause of the limitation of what capitalism can achieve, not necessarly beccause capitalism always hold back progress.

Now, if we get out of the U.S, the most authoritarian of the capitalist structures in the world, China is getting more and more technologically advanced and have also a growing infrastructure, and their space program is taking off at a groundbreaking speed.

Well, what does that tell us? that capitalism ''prosperity'' is something that cannot be spread but merely moved. That in itself is a big limitation.

[piet11111]

China is still no where near the western world when it comes to prosperity.
Sure they have the financial muscle to start massive projects but they too will fall victim to the crisis and their money will evaporate like water in the desert once their exports crash and the masses will be coming for unemployment benefits.

Fact is that China can not afford to become a prosperous country as that would undermine its sweatshop economy if their people start making a better wage.
Already its struggling to be more competitive then Vietnam or Thailand and production is moving to the Chinese countryside where labor is much cheaper then in the city's.

With high technology china is trying to be a world leader in nuclear fusion research but they are still behind the west (as nuclear knowledge is closely guarded) but catching up.

[danyboy27]

China is still no where near the western world when it comes to prosperity.
Sure they have the financial muscle to start massive projects but they too will fall victim to the crisis and their money will evaporate like water in the desert once their exports crash and the masses will be coming for unemployment benefits.
.
Unlike the U.S, China have the ability to control its own market and to stimulate growth. I remember back in 2008 when everyone was going for the austerity measures china put a massive amount of money in infrastructures, and it allowed china to grow despite the dire economic situation. They got it all; the manifacturing power, the workforce AND the goddamn money, they are basically at the same level the U.S was after ww2 when Asia and Europe was completely destroyed. Right now, many corporations like coca cola are putting millions into china beccause this is where the future mass of customer will be in the future.



Fact is that China can not afford to become a prosperous country as that would undermine its sweatshop economy if their people start making a better wage.
Already its struggling to be more competitive then Vietnam or Thailand and production is moving to the Chinese countryside where labor is much cheaper then in the city's.
And the internal pressure is slowly forcing the chinese governement to pay their workers more. Of course there are many other asian countries with cheaper workforce, but China have the know-how and can produce more product than all of these south asian countries combined. China is also more politically stable than, lets say thailland. The rising cost of their workforce will of course cause some issues, but More cutting edge technology and more unit per hour will fix that.



With high technology china is trying to be a world leader in nuclear fusion research but they are still behind the west (as nuclear knowledge is closely guarded) but catching up.
China is working in collaboration with europe and the U.S to develop Nuclear fusion, they have been for several years now, i dont know what you are talking about.
http://www.iter.org/newsline/136/293

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

One of the area of scientific progress that is easy to see how it is halted in capitalism is healthcare. They only work on definitive cures and better medicine if it gives them a far better profit than what they're doing right now.

Another is energy/fuel. I once met a guy who had made a new type of engine who worked quite efficiently with water. Let us just say he was forced to end his research and never ever return to it. Because it would hurt the interests of oil industry.

This is a misnomer.

Capitalism doesn't impede technological progress per se, it merely impedes its implementation. There is plenty of incentive to invent, innovate and be entrepreneurial under Capitalism. The problem is the third word - entrepreneurial - gives away everything; under Capitalism the incentive is greed and self-interest, whereas under a more egalitarian system the goalposts would be shifted whereby the incentive to innovate and be inventive would be to provide the greatest technological progress to the greatest number.

But yeah, Marxists that say 'Capitalism impedes technology' really just sound stupid, because it's plainly not true.

[OHumanista]

He probably lied, no such thing is possible. But if he really invented such thing and was threatened, he should release the complete plans anonymously through the internet. Or at least the general principle. But noone who makes such claims never does so... because its all fake :p

It is, sure it was at a very initial stage, and he can't because he was threatened, he destroyed his papers. And I believe him because he gained a HUGE fortune by giving in and destroying his research.
Common engineer is poor on one day, he didn't win on lottery or anything yet the next day after canceling his project he becomes a rich guy...Considering there aren't ANY other logical explanations for where that wealth came from I take his version as true.

[Psy]

This is a misnomer.

Capitalism doesn't impede technological progress per se, it merely impedes its implementation. There is plenty of incentive to invent, innovate and be entrepreneurial under Capitalism. The problem is the third word - entrepreneurial - gives away everything; under Capitalism the incentive is greed and self-interest, whereas under a more egalitarian system the goalposts would be shifted whereby the incentive to innovate and be inventive would be to provide the greatest technological progress to the greatest number.

But yeah, Marxists that say 'Capitalism impedes technology' really just sound stupid, because it's plainly not true.

Capitalist does only develop technology they see as profitable, for example capitalists developed fixed winged aircraft over airships because airships just count not give capitalists the same surplus value over fixed winged aircraft.

[piet11111]

Unlike the U.S, China have the ability to control its own market and to stimulate growth.

China is just as capitalistic as the rest of the world and subject to the same economic forces.
It is entirely dependent on the rest of the world to unload its goods.


I remember back in 2008 when everyone was going for the austerity measures china put a massive amount of money in infrastructures, and it allowed china to grow despite the dire economic situation.

So did the United states they spend trillions of dollars to bail out the banks.


They got it all; the manifacturing power, the workforce AND the goddamn money, they are basically at the same level the U.S was after ww2 when Asia and Europe was completely destroyed.

Only now Asia and Europe are not destroyed there is nowhere to grow the markets are shrinking due to the crisis where previously the USA had plenty of space for their markets to grow.


Right now, many corporations like coca cola are putting millions into china beccause this is where the future mass of customer will be in the future.

They are putting millions of dollars into China because Europe and the USA are simply not delivering on their investments.
Fact is that increased productivity is not paying off anymore China is mothballing aluminum factory's right after finishing them to avoid crashing the aluminum market prices.



And the internal pressure is slowly forcing the chinese governement to pay their workers more. Of course there are many other asian countries with cheaper workforce, but China have the know-how and can produce more product than all of these south asian countries combined.

Productivity has not been the driving force of capitalism for a long time.


China is also more politically stable than, lets say thailland. The rising cost of their workforce will of course cause some issues, but More cutting edge technology and more unit per hour will fix that.

China has a massive demographic timebomb under its ass as they struggle to provide jobs to the people entering the labor force every month.
Global capitalism simply can not grow fast enough to put those people to work anymore.
Political stability impressions are just that almost everyone thought Mubarak was going to stay for years and now he is gone.
China could blow up any day especially when you consider that strikes are growing in numbers and frequency.



China is working in collaboration with europe and the U.S to develop Nuclear fusion, they have been for several years now, i dont know what you are talking about.
http://www.iter.org/newsline/136/293

True i have no sources to back up my claims but i really think that many country's are withholding information about nuclear physics because nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are closely related.
I know that the USA and the USSR kept a close eye on their astrological papers to gauge their knowledge on nuclear physics based on their theory's about how stars function.


Capitalist does only develop technology they see as profitable, for example capitalists developed fixed winged aircraft over airships because airships just count not give capitalists the same surplus value over fixed winged aircraft.

Zeppelins where deemed too unsafe after the Hindenburg and since other gasses at the time where not available they abandoned them.
However they are coming back into focus as a faster means to transport super heavy cargo's then by ship by the US army they have had several programs and built prototypes but none of them so far seem to get beyond testing phase.
They do seem very useful as a tank transport to the most isolated places without functional airfields.

[Psy]

Zeppelins where deemed too unsafe after the Hindenburg and since other gasses at the time where not available they abandoned them.
However they are coming back into focus as a faster means to transport super heavy cargo's then by ship by the US army they have had several programs and built prototypes but none of them so far seem to get beyond testing phase.
They do seem very useful as a tank transport to the most isolated places without functional airfields.

The Hindenburg accident was caused by pushing the technology into service before it was ready, they wanted to use them for passenger air service when at the time they mostly where only good for scientific missions where there was no pressure to put the airship in unnecessary risk. Remeber the Graf Zepplien circled the world so for scientific expeditions Zeppliens made scene for passenger travel the technology was too dangerous.