What would technological advancement look like in a Communist society?

[TomVine92]

I've been thinking recently that, undoubtedly, today we see vast amounts of technological progress.

What would technology look like in a Communist society? Would things like the internet be easy to maintain?

[Blake's Baby]

How can we tell?

It's hard enough to know what technology will look like in capitalism in 20 years' time, I don't know how we could stare into our crystal balls and see what communism could produce in 20 years' time, sorry.

I suspect that the way our technology is produced and used will change radically, however. I would expect that it will be considerably 'greener' than it is now for instance; I also suspect that mass suicides among technology workers will no longer be occuring. Otherwise... I really don't know.

[Book O'Dead]

I've been thinking recently that, undoubtedly, today we see vast amounts of technological progress.

What would technology look like in a Communist society? Would things like the internet be easy to maintain?

To put it simply: Under socialism technology will be humanity's slave; at the service of society, created, applied & operated to satisfy social needs and wants, whereas under present capitalist management, technology serves as the means by which private parties and persons enslave humanity and exploit it for profit.

[TomVine92]

Of course, I'm not asking for you to predict the future. I also am not asking for someone to tell me what kind of technology would exist, but simply how innovation would be managed. I ask this because many put forward the argument that Communist societies are 'backward', which I do not believe.

[Blake's Baby]

What 'communist societies' are you talking about?

[TomVine92]

Any right-wing person I encounter talks of Communism as being backward. I'm not referring to a particular example, although some cite Cuba.

[ckaihatsu]

Any right-wing person I encounter talks of Communism as being backward. I'm not referring to a particular example, although some cite Cuba.


We should be clear that the revolution comes first.

As with anything material, though, it can be tricky to judge whether resources should go to less-critical humane needs and wants first, or should be "invested" in developing new technologies and methods for future improvements down-the-line.

A mass revolution could, in the short-term, very well *hinder* technological progress as people's efforts are directed more immediately to political matters and overcoming the rule of capital. Opportunists will point to this as being "ineffectiveness" on the part of the socialist campaign since the existing domineering markets-and-state system would be more innovative by comparison due to its king-of-the-hill status.

But I think it's safe to say that it's *usually* a trade-off, though not always:

Wouldn't it be better to put all efforts to ending inequality first, and then concern ourselves with technological improvements *after* -- ? Or could improving technology *first* create developments that *sidestep* political issues and boost humane empowerment directly, by making better tools more immediately available to more people -- ?


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

[Blake's Baby]

Some of us don't think Cuba has anything to do with communism.

So the argument is "state-controlled capitalism is less efficient at providing shiny things (except spacecraft maybe, think USSR in the 1950s-'60s) than market-dominated capitalism (which was of course still Keynesian in the west for much of the post-War period)".

Some or all of that may be true. But not important. It's got precious little to do with communism.

[hatzel]

This isn't the kind of issue where there is a 'line,' or anything even vaguely approaching a conclusive answer; socialists range from the technophilic to the technophobic, each with their own ideas about the role technology should play in a socialist society. I feel that it we will not actually know what position is most fitting until the situation is upon us, when we have had the chance to experiment with a range of different approaches, some embracing technology, some taking a much more critical stance...

[Book O'Dead]

This isn't the kind of issue where there is a 'line,' or anything even vaguely approaching a conclusive answer; socialists range from the technophilic to the technophobic, each with their own ideas about the role technology should play in a socialist society. I feel that it we will not actually know what position is most fitting until the situation is upon us, when we have had the chance to experiment with a range of different approaches, some embracing technology, some taking a much more critical stance...

But anyone worthy of the socialist label, whether he loves technology or hates it, must agree that technology will have to be taken out of private hands and made the property of society, democratically run for the benefit of all. Wouldn't you agree?

[hatzel]

As much as an abstract concept like 'technology' can be said to be possessed by these or those individuals, I would have to agree, yes...

[Book O'Dead]

As much as an abstract concept like 'technology' can be said to be possessed by these or those individuals, I would have to agree, yes...

True, the term is somewhat vague. By 'technology' and 'technological advances' I understand to mean everything related to the invention & development of all useful machinery that can be applied to social uses and production.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll add that, to take the question more literally, it's practically an *existential* question, since, once past the class divide, the broadest, largest questions of *humanities* and *tool-usage* would stare humanity right in the face, with no hurdles in the way as there are today.

Even "techno-philic" and "techno-phobic" would be insufficient then as being just hopelessly too vague.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[Psy]

Wouldn't it be better to put all efforts to ending inequality first, and then concern ourselves with technological improvements *after* -- ? Or could improving technology *first* create developments that *sidestep* political issues and boost humane empowerment directly, by making better tools more immediately available to more people -- ?


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/

I think technology advanced as it would be unleashed and no longer the property of capitalists and their states. Engineers won't have to deal with patents, underdeveloped nations will have access to all of humanities knowledge for free.

[Ocean Seal]

So think of technological advancement in capitalism. Now picture it faster...
Seriously, 1917-backwards third world country/decaying empire, 1957-first space faring country. Even degenerate examples of socialism advanced technology at a rate that capitalism couldn't keep up with.