Question about ethics of Cold War policy.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The point is that improvements can be made in a communist system too.

No, the point is that in ANY state run planned economic system, the rate of innovation is MUCH lower than a more free-market economy. Communists, such as Marx, will acknowledge capitalism is the BEST economy for innovation that has ever existed in history (of course they believe the trade-off is too much).

I'm not claiming that communists states can invent as many different kinds of consumer products. I think that if the US was communist right now the rate of innovation might very well be slower, but only by choice. Take the case were scientific achievement were a primary goal of the state. I argue that the rate of innovation would be at least as great as if it would with a mixed economy with the same goals and dedication. Just that those innovations would benefit society in a greater way under communism than with the mixed economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would those innovations better society in better way under communism?! Consumer goods are essential to the benefit of society! Capitalism requires technological progress, communism does not, so I fail to see how communism can even compare to capitalism. There is not as much incentive to innovate under a planned system.

Even if scientific achievement were the primary goal of the state, a planned economy would STILL fall behind. Look at the USSR, which pushed science. They were impressive in space technology and certain military technology but everything else was welll inferior to the innovations in the US, even though the US as well focused on military and space tech. The private sector made up the gap in the US, and it couldn't (because it didn't exist) in the USSR.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why would those innovations better society in better way under communism?! Consumer goods are essential to the benefit of society! Capitalism requires technological progress, communism does not, so I fail to see how communism can even compare to capitalism. There is not as much incentive to innovate under a planned system.

Even if scientific achievement were the primary goal of the state, a planned economy would STILL fall behind. Look at the USSR, which pushed science. They were impressive in space technology and certain military technology but everything else was welll inferior to the innovations in the US, even though the US as well focused on military and space tech. The private sector made up the gap in the US, and it couldn't (because it didn't exist) in the USSR.

Imran would you rather the US launched the first satilite or invented color TV? Of course the launch of Sputnik was far greater for not just the USSR, but the whole world. Oh, and maybe you didn't know that the USSR was ahead of us in biotech. The military tech is the best tech to develope for society. Even in the US the military tech has given us all kinds of commercial applications.

Now you are also comparing the US to the USSR. This isn't fair. Compare the two in 1920. The US was way ahead in many regards, especially in education. It takes generations to make siginificant changes to your society. You just can't have a revolution and suddenly advance your society hundreds of years. When the USSR was coming out of feudalism the US had been a developed capitalist society for over a hundred years. Do you seriously want to compare these.

[Lancer]

The Soviet Union was years ahead in yet another way...

Belly up:
Soviet Union...once
US...never

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Communists, such as Marx, will acknowledge capitalism is the BEST economy for innovation that has ever existed in history (of course they believe the trade-off is too much).

You do have to remember, however, that when Marx wrote that, there were no communist states. Marx assumed that the rate of innovation would actually increase under socialism and communism, since R&D would have the financial backing of the whole people rather than just whomever you could convince that your product would make a profit. Without having to worry about survival, more people could devote their time to trying to invent or innovate new techonolgies, methods, etc.

It's not as if the USSR was completely backwards. They came up with some horrific stuff in the field of genetics as applied to germ warfare. Heck, the USA is hiring most of their former bioweapon people today. However, the problem with innovation and inventions from the USSR's point of view was that they were disruptive. As a bureaucrat, invetions mean work, and since you're a bureaucrat, the last thing you want is work, so inventions are bad.

[MrFun]

Chegitz and Shi, thanks for your interesting contributions to this thread (seriously).

[Ned]

Duncan, I think you are mixing sceince and inventions together when they really should be kept separate.

Sure, communism can advance science at rates that equal or exceed the West. Scientific research is not about making money and is largely funded by the government in the West. Since we are comparing apples with apples here, government funding, communism can win this race simply by placing more emphasis on it. But the West can counter with its own spending if it feels the need. Look how fast we caught up in the space race.

Inventions on the other hand are of two varieties: research conducted by corporations to improve products and reduce costs, and those made by independent inventors that many times create whole new industries and technologies.

Think of the telephone, the plane, the telegraph. These are some of the inventions by individuals that transformed the world. In the West, the patent system and private capital brought these inventions to market. Nothing analogous exists in communist countries.

But given the very poor quality and high cost of production of communist consumer products, I would also suggest that there is very little R&D conducted in communist countries to improve products or reduce costs.

Why?

No competition.

[chequita guevara]

It's not just the lack of competition, it's the counter-incentive. Inventions and innovations require retooling machines, changing lines of production, retraining workers. There's no incentive for a bureaucrat to go through all this trouble. If their systems were democatically run, then the people could demand changes as labor-saving or quality-of-life improvements.

BTW, the patent system isn't perfect. Look at the telephone. We give credit to Bell, but he wasn't the first person to invent it, just the first person to get to the patent office. Look at recent crap the paten office has put us through, such as the patent of Amazon's one click sales, as if that wasn't an obvious solution to everyone.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not just the lack of competition, it's the counter-incentive. Inventions and innovations require retooling machines, changing lines of production, retraining workers. There's no incentive for a bureaucrat to go through all this trouble. If their systems were democatically run, then the people could demand changes as labor-saving or quality-of-life improvements.

BTW, the patent system isn't perfect. Look at the telephone. We give credit to Bell, but he wasn't the first person to invent it, just the first person to get to the patent office. Look at recent crap the paten office has put us through, such as the patent of Amazon's one click sales, as if that wasn't an obvious solution to everyone.

No beef from me, Che, on the patent system. It constantly is in need of fixing. However, like democracy, it is better to have the US patent system with its defects than having no patent system at all. IMO, the US patent system it is among the best patent systems in the world, if not the best. A US patent is more valuable than any corresponding patent in any other country.

As to the double-click patent, whether it is valid or not cannot be determined until it is tested in court. However, I agree that the patent seems obvious if it only covers the simple concept of filling in the blanks with prestored data.

[DuncanK]

Ned,

Individual inventors just aren't that significant anymore. Most of the advances are now made by R&D departments. I think the last significant invention by individuals was the personal computer. I doubt if there will be anymore.

[chequita guevara]

Dude, don't discout the Flobie just yet!

[Imran Siddiqui]

If their systems were democatically run, then the people could demand changes as labor-saving or quality-of-life improvements.

I disagree. The people would not vote for labor saving devises because that would put a substantial number of workers out of business. This is why unions were against the dishwasher, because diswashers (ie, people that washed dishes) wouldn't have jobs.

Individual inventors just aren't that significant anymore.

You haven't convinced anyone of this statement. The personal computer was invented merely 25 years ago. Since then you have individual inventors making MANY consumer goods. Think Ronco, think the Foreman Grill. Those are substantial too.

There is always a place for individual inventors as long as people have ideas.

Btw, in many R&D departments you have people that come up with ideas. It relies on individuals and their desire to reach for the stars. Of course this wanting might not always be seen by some as 'beneficial', but who says that Plasma TVs and DVDs aren't significant?

[DuncanK]

Production would not be a problem with communism folks. It's not really a problem right now. The problem right now is distribution. That problem would be solved with communism. We already have plenty of labor saving devises. We need to use the present technology to help the world now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If their systems were democatically run, then the people could demand changes as labor-saving or quality-of-life improvements.

I disagree. The people would not vote for labor saving devises because that would put a substantial number of workers out of business. This is why unions were against the dishwasher, because diswashers (ie, people that washed dishes) wouldn't have jobs.

That's capitalism. In socialism it would be different. We wouldn't need less diswashers, just less time at work washing dishes. For them, it would be a labor-saving device not in the capitalist meaning but in the socialist meaning. So instead of having to work eight hours a day, we'd only have to work two or four hours.

In simpler terms, under socialism, labor saving devices reduce the amount of work we have to do, not the amount of workers needed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If their systems were democatically run, then the people could demand changes as labor-saving or quality-of-life improvements.

Btw, in many R&D departments you have people that come up with ideas. It relies on individuals and their desire to reach for the stars. Of course this wanting might not always be seen by some as 'beneficial', but who says that Plasma TVs and DVDs aren't significant?

Imran, but wild geese in a corporate environment run into the same "bureaucatic" resistance to developing truly new products that Che, et al., have describe for planned economies. There are ten, nay, 1000 new ideas that are suppressed or ignored by capitalist corporations for every new product they introduce. The true innovation comes from independent inventors.