Technological innovation: lifeline for capitalism?

[Lynx]

What role does technological innovation play with regards to capitalism? Does it provide a favourable environment for its survival (ie. new markets, new efficiencies, new possibilities) ?
Can technological innovation save capitalism from itself?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most strategic technological innovations are made within government agencies, only to be commercialized later on. I suppose it does, but precisely because of the role of governments in this aspect.

[Dimentio]

What role does technological innovation play with regards to capitalism? Does it provide a favourable environment for its survival (ie. new markets, new efficiencies, new possibilities) ?
Can technological innovation save capitalism from itself?

If technological process was unrestrained, we would'nt have capitalism today. Because technology makes scarcity more and more irrelevant.

[Lynx]

Most strategic technological innovations are made within government agencies, only to be commercialized later on. I suppose it does, but precisely because of the role of governments in this aspect.
I have seen evidence of private concerns whose motto is essentially "You can't build the markets of tomorrow with the products of today." Granted, they are a minority.

If technological process was unrestrained, we would'nt have capitalism today. Because technology makes scarcity more and more irrelevant.
I agree and am upset by the piecemeal, crisis driven introduction of new technology. At what point do we reach critical mass, ie. enough people realizing that we have the option of abandoning capitalism?

[Hit The North]

It is vitally important to capitalism. Technological innovation is the handmaiden of capitalist accumulation. It takes the form of an arms race between competing capitals, each one attempting to out-do their rivals. Technological innovation under capitalism is mainly geared towards increasing the productivity of labour. If capitalist X's workers are more productive than capitalist Y's workers, then capitalist X can produce at a lower unit cost and hence win the race. The problem is that eventually, capitalist Y will also introduce the new technology and they're back to square one again. Also, as we know, the displacement of human labour with machinery adds to a lower rate of profitability as the ratio of fixed capital rises in relation to variable capital (labour) and this contributes to capitalist crisis.

So, yeah, understanding technology and its uses is important to understanding the motion of capital.

[Dimentio]

I have seen evidence of private concerns whose motto is essentially "You can't build the markets of tomorrow with the products of today." Granted, they are a minority.

I agree and am upset by the piecemeal, crisis driven introduction of new technology. At what point do we reach critical mass, ie. enough people realizing that we have the option of abandoning capitalism?

According to some experts, around year 1920.

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to some experts, around year 1920.

That's if we're all talking about specifically bourgeois capitalism here. The exact calculation of labour time wasn't possible back then. Any attempt to introduce labour credits then would've been, at best, something like Proudhon's "labour money" or the "money but not money" concept of Duhring that was continued theoretically by the Second International and implemented by Stalin (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR).

[MarxSchmarx]

JR is absolutely correct about the centrality of government in keeping capitalism alive via technological innovation.

Without heavy government investment, it would be quite easy for the dominant capitalist to raise the cost of innovation sufficiently high that this won't allow an alternative firm to compete.

For example, Toyota could offer to pay enormous salaries to all mechanical engineering graduates and corner this market. This could make it impossible for smaller companies like Renault to recruit as many (or as talented) engineers. Or, as BTB notes, efficiency gains from replacing human labor with machines can be secured by cornering the markets on such machines. Lower cost isn't always rational in the long term, and it's far from clear that capitalists don't take this into account. These are silly examples, but attempts to monopolize the market to prevent efficient competitors have been tried before with some success by, for example, Microsoft.

Without government involvement, it would be desirable for companies to "effectively" corner the market on innovation.

[Lynx]

Ok, so here's a trial balloon:
Form a political party to advocate scientific and technological advancement. Ideologically, party would be mainstream, but would implement policies to reward progressive technological development (infrastructure, energy efficiency, durability, modularity) and ignore or tax counter-productive 'industries' / activities (weapons development, finance, rent-seeking, and the like).

Could that be an appropriate strategy for revolutionary leftists?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not really, Lynx. :( The very minimum for optimal party organization has always been and will continue to be class strugglism (note here that I didn't say "socialism," "communism," or my neologism equivalents). However, that tech "party" should actually be a pressure group like the "Christian Right" groups in the US since the late 70s.

[Lynx]

As a pressure group, its likely home in Canada would be the NDP.

Btw, I'm advocating multiple strategies (no precluding of one strategy in favor of another).

Regarding the North American based Technocrats - they insist they are not a political party and do not wish to engage in politics. However, increased interest has led them to float a questionnaire where the 'no politics rule' may be re-examined.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given what you said before my reply, I suppose the class-collaborationist, Blairite NDP could use a techie makeover. BTW, in regards to vertical farming (a tech thing), it's implied here (thanks to my comradely input towards the drafting of the program):

http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62


A publicly-owned construction-industrial program to build and rebuild public service and recreation facilities, residential neighborhoods and communities, schools, workplaces, urban farms, and societal infrastructure. All programs to be organized and controlled by councils or assemblies of workers.

[Read: Even a two-floor urban "farm" would be leaps and miles ahead of the "rural idiocy" (to quote Marx) that is subsidized farming, whether small (EU) or "industrial" (US).]

[ckaihatsu]

Mode of production determines rate of technological progress *not* vice-versa!


Could that be an appropriate strategy for revolutionary leftists?


The very fact that you're asking about the possibility of a mainstream (bourgeois) oriented strategy really calls into question your assumed role of "Revolutionary", Lynx.

That said, let's deal with it, because it *is* a relevant topic....



Ok, so here's a trial balloon:
Form a political party to advocate scientific and technological advancement. Ideologically, party would be mainstream, but would implement policies to reward progressive technological development (infrastructure, energy efficiency, durability, modularity) and ignore or tax counter-productive 'industries' / activities (weapons development, finance, rent-seeking, and the like).

Could that be an appropriate strategy for revolutionary leftists?


This "progressive technological development" principle would be impossible due to the political winds of mainstream politics. All R&D (research and development) is subject to corporate, academic, and governmental politics.

If it's going to be introduced into corporate circles then it can't be too upsetting to the established cartels (like petroleum). Academia has its own pecking order as well, and government budgets don't change that quickly.

These days all of society's sectors are so well-carved-out and frozen that I've decided to just call our world's economy "neo-feudalism" in the interests of accuracy...(!)

The very fact that someone (you) is *asking* this question in such a blank-faced, studious way instead of rushing out to join the sales force of some cutting-edge company that's red-hot with revenue is a testament to what I've just said -- there *is* no cutting-edge company that's red-hot with revenue because the entire corporate world is so ossified at this point.

Incidentally, as far as capitalism is concerned, the armaments industry can be *very* "progressive" for their interests (especially in the 20th century) because the waging of war destroys your opponent's capital infrastructure and leaves opportunities for your own, favored companies to go in and rebuild (Blackwater, Halliburton, etc., in Iraq).

Please see this hierarchy of historical / materialist magnitude:


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Dimentio]

That's if we're all talking about specifically bourgeois capitalism here. The exact calculation of labour time wasn't possible back then. Any attempt to introduce labour credits then would've been, at best, something like Proudhon's "labour money" or the "money but not money" concept of Duhring that was continued theoretically by the Second International and implemented by Stalin (Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR).

We are not talking man-hours, but machine-hours. Man-hours is about 1-5% of all energy usage in a modern economy. During Marx's time, they still accounted for about 30%.

[Lynx]

Mode of production determines rate of technological progress *not* vice-versa!
And yet... communism is technically feasible TODAY and has been for awhile.

The very fact that you're asking about the possibility of a mainstream (bourgeois) oriented strategy really calls into question your assumed role of "Revolutionary", Lynx.
It's a risk I'm willing to take.


This "progressive technological development" principle would be impossible due to the political winds of mainstream politics. All R&D (research and development) is subject to corporate, academic, and governmental politics.
Hence the importance of separation of policy from mechanism.


If it's going to be introduced into corporate circles then it can't be too upsetting to the established cartels (like petroleum). Academia has its own pecking order as well, and government budgets don't change that quickly.
In the wake of the current crisis, some priorities have ostensibly changed. The cartels, although disliking change, remain in the best position to exploit new opportunities. Their opposition is one of laziness and, as you later put it, ossification.


These days all of society's sectors are so well-carved-out and frozen that I've decided to just call our world's economy "neo-feudalism" in the interests of accuracy...(!)
Yes, I read this in another thread. Accurate and depressing :(


The very fact that someone (you) is *asking* this question in such a blank-faced, studious way instead of rushing out to join the sales force of some cutting-edge company that's red-hot with revenue is a testament to what I've just said -- there *is* no cutting-edge company that's red-hot with revenue because the entire corporate world is so ossified at this point.
Yes, they are ossified and I'm not the only one who can't stand it. There are some capitalists and many technocrats who have strong opinions as to which sectors of the economy are productive and which are not. They would be in favor of a long term change in government policy.
For others, the restrictions imposed by the ossified status quo drive them to pursue their own personal quest and it is this tiny minority who have contributed disproportionately to shaking things up. I suppose this is a major tendency when you live in a reactionary society.


Incidentally, as far as capitalism is concerned, the armaments industry can be *very* "progressive" for their interests (especially in the 20th century) because the waging of war destroys your opponent's capital infrastructure and leaves opportunities for your own, favored companies to go in and rebuild (Blackwater, Halliburton, etc., in Iraq).
Yup, around 1 trillion per year world wide dedicated to repression and destruction. US is #1 big spender in this category. Numbers sanctified

[ckaihatsu]

I can see we're on the same wavelength here, Lynx -- just as a semantic clarification, I'd like to distinguish between the mode of production and technological ability as two distinct, separate -- though interrelated -- things.

One could argue that communism may have been societally possible back around 1 A.D., but we agree that it's easier still when one can simply communicate about it across the world on top of the technology that is the Internet.

[Lynx]

It's easier and yet the old ways and habits still persist. You can lead a horse to water, but.....

[Die Neue Zeit]

We are not talking man-hours, but machine-hours. Man-hours is about 1-5% of all energy usage in a modern economy. During Marx's time, they still accounted for about 30%.

That's an interesting tidbit, there. Source?

[ckaihatsu]

It's easier and yet the old ways and habits still persist. You can lead a horse to water, but.....


Weeeellllllllllll, to be fair, we know that it's not as easy as snapping our fingers -- it *does* require a consciously revolutionary, mass movement...!

[Lynx]

Weeeellllllllllll, to be fair, we know that it's not as easy as snapping our fingers -- it *does* require a consciously revolutionary, mass movement...!
Yes, unlike a horse, who will take a drink if he or she is thirsty, humans require a consciously revolutionary mass movement. They require the current economic system to fail catastrophically.

[ckaihatsu]

[Humans] require the current economic system to fail catastrophically.


Yeah, it certainly helps to discredit the capitalist status quo! (etc.)

[Lynx]

Yeah, it certainly helps to discredit the capitalist status quo! (etc.)
Even then, people remain receptive to 'New Deal' type reforms. The majority preference for perceived 'moderate' changes at the expense of more 'radical' ones is a cognitive bias. Seems the only way to counter this is through polemics or incendiary speeches that get enough supporters emotionally riled up.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You should double-post that remark of yours in my minimum program thread. In any event, there's only so much that technological innovation can do for the system as a whole.

[ckaihatsu]

Even then, people remain receptive to 'New Deal' type reforms. The majority preference for perceived 'moderate' changes at the expense of more 'radical' ones is a cognitive bias.


Yeah, I'll admit to *entertaining* discussion around these kinds of reforms, but only as an icebreaker to get a political conversation going about larger political themes -- I have no illusions that the decaying capitalist government is going to want to empower the working class in the least by turning around 180 degrees to create worker-friendly policy for us...!



Seems the only way to counter this is through polemics or incendiary speeches that get enough supporters emotionally riled up.


At this point I feel like we've accomplished a lot in the direction of a concrete plan for a socialist / communist economy, through several of the active threads. Perhaps making a solid presentation with these plans would go a long way in providing a model for society that's worth fighting for.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, I'll admit to *entertaining* discussion around these kinds of reforms, but only as an icebreaker to get a political conversation going about larger political themes -- I have no illusions that the decaying capitalist government is going to want to empower the working class in the least by turning around 180 degrees to create worker-friendly policy for us...!

Well, grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks in my minimum program thread. :D