Innovation in a socialist society

  1. Dimentio - 10th February 2008, 00:16
    My esteemed colleague, dr. Andrew Wallace, has expressed for me the following concern given my worries about the fate of invention in a future non-capitalist society, with that scientists should be given a specific amount of resources just to play around and experiment.

    The key-word is innovation, and one great thing with capitalism, which we should confess, is that if an inventor in her basement plays with something most people find totally unnecessary, there is a chance that some new technology which no one - maybe not even the inventor herself - would/could have imagined.

    I wonder how we should do to divert resources in a future non-capitalist society to ensure high levels of innovation, which I see as a necessary component of any dynamic post-industrial society? What do you think?
  2. Sentinel
    Sentinel - 10th February 2008, 00:29
    The key-word is innovation, and one great thing with capitalism, which we should confess, is that if an inventor in her basement plays with something most people find totally unnecessary, there is a chance that some new technology which no one - maybe not even the inventor herself - would/could have imagined.
    What I don't understand, is why this is supposed to be exclusive for capitalism? In communism people will have much more time and resources for the purpose of study and innovation. I expect the Singularity to come fast once the price system is scrapped through revolution, due to an explosion of creative thinking.

    Let's face it, Dr Wallace is a smart man, but he is also a self-confessed reformist, and likely way right of us politically speaking. It does not surprise me that he has bought the 'no more inventions without competition' capitalist myth.
  3. Dimentio - 10th February 2008, 00:33
    He has'nt bought it. He actually said something like: "Well, there'd be less invention in terms of new tubes of toothpaste each six month, but probably more new technologies"

    His solution was to allow scientists and inventors to have the resources to play around with research almost as much they like, then the technate will simply swap up what could be used for a greater good.

    My criticism of that theory was that we in the same time we will give those resources could create an unintentional waste-bin of resources which could be hypothetically used to increase human quality of life in other sectors.
  4. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx - 10th February 2008, 06:57
    those resources could create an unintentional waste-bin of resources which could be hypothetically used to increase human quality of life in other sectors.
    Unfortunately, we can only be certain resources were "wasted" in hindsight. That's the cost we pay for funding innovation. We can minimize those costs/risks through processes like peer-reviewed research grants, clinical trials, etc...

    More generally, this problem isn't unique to socialism. Capitalism abounds in useless inventions (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3264420.ece)
    as well as scientific research grants from both government and industry for dead end fields. In fact, market economies are probably more "inefficient" in this respect.
  5. Dimentio - 10th February 2008, 11:59
    The difference is that capitalism has never claimed to create prosperity for everyone. But waste in capitalism is more prevalent due to property rigts (which prohibits efficient usage of resources) and overproduction.
  6. MarxSchmarx
    MarxSchmarx - 12th February 2008, 05:03
    The difference is that capitalism has never claimed to create prosperity for everyone
    They have, going back to Adam Smith.
    http://www.bartleby.com/67/645.html

    Pathetic though it maybe, they still do:
    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1559

    And indeed aggregate consumible materials has increased exponentially under capitalism. It is consumption, and not production, that is skewed. Despite this, capitalists cling to a "rising tide lifts all boats" which has a kernel of truth in the global north.