Without competition, what would be the major spur for innovation?
Suppose you have communism, and you make a car. What's the incentive to ever improve on it and not just keep doing things the same way over and over again? I'm not saying there would be no advancement, there obviously would be because it would interest people, but the incentive would be drastically reduced. The incentive for advancement in the USSR was competing with Western capitalism, after all.
>>76795716
this is why Marxism is utopic.
>>76795716
Creative and innovative people do so because they are driven to do it from within, not from the promise of riches. They are compelled to create. That's where the idea of the muse comes from, a force that won't leave you alone until you bring the ideas in your head to life.
The incentive is still there but the goal is different. If you are making a car using other people's money then the incentive is to make the car as cheaply and quickly as possible with no regard to quality or safety
>>76795716
To help your people.
Oh, wait...
>>76795716
People always innovate. People have been innovating since before money and wealth were a thing, people have innovated when there's little financial incentive, and people have created their own incentive to innovate.
>>76795990
So we'd have a bunch of shitty art and nothing productive going on. great
>>76795716
Because humans are naturally creative and co-operative. It's how we evolved.
The idea that profit is the only possible motive for humans is a bourgeois lie. Without the threats of capitalism and a reduced working week, people would be free to pursue their dreams and innovate to their hearts content, with access to the means of production guaranteed for all. Capitalism will prevent automation because the system will not survive it.
>>76795716
in communism the best option (for a pleb and not the elite) is to have the less complex job, like grabing garbage or cleaning the streets
>>76797145
Humans are naturally competitive, that's how evolution works - its a big competition.
Also OP wasn't asking about automation, he was asking about innovation and the rate at which we innovate.
I personally think that innovation is already stunted, people are coming up with stupid side-grade ideas like a new type of washing up sponge because that is what the market dictates needs to be produced (which is not necessarily the thing that ought to be produced)
First of all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If someone makes it better and cheaper, then it is broke. Fix it if you want to continue making it. That is how free markets work.
>>76797145
>access
Bullshit.
Innovation requires experimentation. Experimentation requires resources, which in the case of communism are controlled. How are they allotted? Is there a check to see if some idiots are wasting them?
>>76797928
But muh each according to his needs!
>>76796918
that's wildly untrue
Before currency, we had bartering and resources were your finances.
Ugg developing the spear while Bugg only can throw stones allows Ugg to get more finances, aka resources, by out competing other tribes.
>>76797145
You must have a warped view of innovation these days. We already understand almost everything about physics and engineering in a practical sense of things. How the fuck is joe blow in his garage going to innovate without the competition that only government-free, corporate-driven markets provide?
>>76797730
Automation is innovation. AI will allow far greater innovation than is currently possible too. Technology progresses and man will liberate himself from "work". You are right about capitalism producing all sorts of useless shit though. Production for profit is ultimately inefficient and wasteful, no matter what market fundamentalists think.
>>76797928
The workers themselves control resources through democratic councils. There will still be specialisation of labour, so rest assured "idiots" won't just be able to do whatever they want.
And resources are controlled under capitalism too. It's just they get wasted and used to fuel wars and profit for the bourgeoisie.
>>76795716
This very well may be your book.
>The need for a book on system-specific economic distortions and their impact on economic performance of the Soviet-type economies was, not for the first time, strongly felt by me in the spring of 1983 in a Warsaw ice-cream parlor, while I discussed the latest developments in the area with an American friend, an expert on Eastern Europe. The friend, looking at the quite crowded place, remarked casually: 'I can imagine how crowded it will be after office hours.' 'Wrong', I said: 'After office hours, it will become half empty, since most people will go home or, more probably, go queuing somewhere.' Since there was so much to discuss, my friend saw for himself the place getting emptier and emptier as 4 p.m. approached.
>I then realized once again that it was something more than a case of the misunderstanding of labor supply reactions in the Soviet-type economy. It also furnished anecdotal evidence of the fact -- and the umpteenth case of it -- that even Western experts tend to take for granted the normality and, consequently, the universality of behavioral patterns grounded in the rationality of the Western system. Behind each piece of such anecdotal evidence of the misunderstanding by Western experts of one or another facet of the Soviet system was usually the underlying belief in a common rationality for both the market-type and the Soviet-type economies -- a largely mistaken view.
>>76795716
>>76795990
The majority of "innovation" comes from increasing productivity, which is only incentivized in capitalism. If you ever had a real job you'd understand that. Try again.
>>76798323
an AI can never innovate. An artificial intelligence is only as smart as it's creator makes it, so it can never surpass a human
>>76798176
In that era (most of human existence), economic inequality and class formation was almost nil.
>>76798323
>democratic council
You've already placed a restriction that contradicts
>>76797145
>people would be free to pursue their dreams and innovate to their hearts content, with access to the means of production guaranteed for all
>>76798323
Good post
Otherwise the KGB kills your family
>>76795990
This is true to some extent, but these days nothing can come from it. The jews / corporations control the marketing, governments, news media, etc. You can see this in state government activities. They really fucking hate small business these days and will do anything to stop it. If you have dreams of being successful in the 18th, 19th,20th century sense because you are an "inventor", just fucking forget it.
Humans cannot innovate without the incentive of money
>>76798811
>economic inequality and class formation was nil
HAHAHAHAHHA
are you serious?
Humans are naturally unequal and arrange themselves as such.
There have always been and will always be social classes and any attempt at "equality" only creates peasants and rulers.
>>76796918
I'm not saying they didn't, but since the advent of capitalism, the rate has drastically accelerated.
>>76797145
>a communist appealing to "human nature"
srsly?
>>76798930
nice meme
>>76799440
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification
>Anthropologists dispute the "universal" nature of social stratification, holding that it is not the standard among all societies. John Gowdy (2006) writes, "Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural, do not apply to many hunter-gatherer peoples.[9] Non-stratified egalitarian or acephalous ("headless") societies exist which have little or no concept of social hierarchy, political or economic status, class, or even permanent leadership.
>>76800105
>one guy disagrees and is cited
>therefore all anthropologists agree that there was no inequality
Humans are naturally competitive and have always been.
You have to compete for women. You have to compete to survival against other tribes. You have to compete to survive economically.
Men even love to compete against one another from sports, cooking, boxing, to video games.
The world has always been about competition.
>>76795990
>Creative and innovative people do so because they are driven to do it from within, not from the promise of riches.
Sure thing. Here's your 1988 model two-stroke Wartturd.
>>76798323
>Automation is innovation.
Backwards, automation is streamlining an existing process, it improves the efficiency of the process but not it's efficacy; An automated but flawed process is harder to maintain and costs more in the long run than a less flawed but manual process.
Automation is the last step, it's the repetition of that process never it's innovation.
>Technology progresses and man will liberate himself from "work"
Man cannot liberate from himself.
I know it can be a hard concept to swallow, this is the human "tragedy".
>You are right about capitalism producing all sorts of useless shit though
That's not necessarily "capitalism".
>Production for profit is ultimately inefficient and wasteful, no matter what market fundamentalists think.
This I agree with.
Ok Capitalist chair company,
10 workers produce 80 chairs an day, 10 workers get paid $80 (they work 8 hours and get $10 an hour) a day ($800), chairs sell for $30 ($2400 revenue) making a profit of $1600. Productivity goes up because of machines, so now they can produce twice the amount of chairs per hour. So what happens? The company FIRES 5 workers, leaving 5 unemployed, and guess what, unemployment pressure means that the worker can pay his workers only $70 a day now and they'll take it (for fear of being fired), so now he pays $350, and his revenue is $2400, making a profit of $2050. 5 workers loose their job, 5 get pay cuts and the boss gets a fat bonus.
Then you get major problems on the macro level as this happens over and over again and so on and so forth you have major problems withcapitalism, plus there are other problems such as competition and the rate of profit falling and so on and so forth.
Socialist chair company.
Everything the same, except workers DON'T get paid $80, the 10 workers split the revenue, so they get $240 a day for working 8 hours, then a new machine comes up, so now they can produce twice as fast, so what happens? Now Everyone can work 4 hours a day and get the same amount of money.
Now, I spelled it out very clearly to you, a 5 year old could get this.
>>76801915
>Everything the same, except workers DON'T get paid $80, the 10 workers split the revenue, so they get $240 a day for working 8 hours, then a new machine comes up, so now they can produce twice as fast, so what happens? Now Everyone can work 4 hours a day and get the same amount of money.
In which part of the story do the workers get gulaged or sent to labor camps for being counter-revolutionaries?
What about the part where they starve to death due to gross mismanagement, in the Maoist sense?
You're missing a whole lot of crucial details, there.
>>76796918
That's why the first man on the moon was a Roman.
>>76802133
As a Roman here, first thing I do in the morning after I wake up is to piss excellence.
>>76801915
God, what an idiot you are.
The capitalist company is doing what companies have done for thousands of years - firing people when technology comes along, forcing people to learn new skills.
Where are all the people who harvest grain by hand? Oh yeah, we used animals for that. Then technology.
Where are all the people that hand forged gun parts? Oh yeah, Eli Whitney made replaceable parts so we could mass produce!
Your hopeful scenario in #1 is for new technology never to come along so we can all have a 2002 blackberry instead of having the choices of smart phones we have now.
Your shitty scenario in #2 has everyone taking all the money, so the company never grows, never develops, never improves, and always remains stagnant.
You remind me of me when I was 14
>>76801915
I've never seen a single instance of people being docked pay because some workers are replaced with machines. Believe it or not there's a free market out there and other chair companies to compete. If another chair company is willing to pay more for labor then the workers will change companies. It doesn't even have to be a chair company it can be anything.
You forgot to account that labor is also a commodity that is bought and sold like any other good, as such it follows the law of supply and demand.
Get fucked, retard.
>>76801915
>So what happens? The company FIRES 5 workers, leaving 5 unemployed,
Or you know, sell twice as many chairs.
>so now they can produce twice as fast, so what happens? Now Everyone can work 4 hours a day and get the same amount of money.
Lazy fuck
>Capitalist: let's see how we can make the most money
>Socialist: let's see how little we can work
And you wonder why it's said to be unsustainable.
>>76800363
>Humans are naturally competitive and have always been.
I will research this in depth sometime later, needless to say, I have my fair share of doubts.
>The world has always been about competition.
Mmmm....... But what would happen if said competitions ([spoiler]in this case Capitalism[/spoiler]) is detrimental to the whole of society?
Would that be still ok?
>>76804063
>capitalism
>detrimental
The most capitalist countries are the best countries. Even in that shithole of South America, Chile is the freest there and subsequently has the highest rank on the human development index in that continent.
also compare hong kong to china.
>>76801915
Now they're overproducing chairs and 4 team members are not pulling their weight. How is that any better than capitalism?
>>76795716
none, competition fuels life
