I think one depressing example is innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields. “If we don’t build it, someone else will first” is unfortunately historically been shown to be true, has it not?

Today’s unsavory borderline reactionary doomposting brought to you by: my crippling fear that I’m isolating myself in a political echo-chamber (so naturally I gotta hop online and exclusively ask my fellow leftists)

  • someone [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    5 months ago

    The one that I get is “competition breeds innovation”. I think they’re just wrong that it should always be monetary competition. Personal-prestige competition (such as academic reputations) can also be a powerful motivator. The USSR had a bit of this going on in the various OKBs.

    • spicy pancakeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      5 months ago

      Having dabbled in academia I have witnessed firsthand that no amount of economic/business rivalry will ever measure up to the unhinged competition of fanatically curious nerds

  • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 months ago

    innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields

    Once upon a time, before finance capital took over, sure I guess. But, just look at hypersonic missiles. Every attempt by Lockheed-Martin to launch one blows up on the launch pad, and China keeps one-upping themselves in that space.

  • Tachanka [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I think one depressing example is innovation in weapons and other dangerous fields. “If we don’t build it, someone else will first” is unfortunately historically been shown to be true, has it not?

    Capitalism didn’t introduce “innovation” nor did Capitalism introduce “competition”. People were technologically innovating before capitalism and will be technologically innovating after capitalism. “If we don’t build it, someone else will first” was just as motivating a factor in warfare in the year 2024 BCE as it is in 2024 CE.

    Capitalism is not an invention on a tech tree in a civilization video game. Capitalism is a unique historical confluence of several things happening around the same time: Rapid industrialization, the end of feudalism and serfdom, proletarianization of the peasantry, the rise of the bourgeoisie, the fall of the landed aristocracy, wage labor becoming the dominant form of labor, the destruction of the guild system, the creation of the factory system, hyperspecialization (division of labor always existed by hyperspecialization was unique in that you’d spend 12 hours in a factory doing exactly 1 task in the 19th century assembly line, rendering you unable to learn other skills or have any free time after work) the creation of the international credit system and national banks, the creation of the world economy, and the reproduction of capital through the appropriation of surplus value.

    Another thing people don’t understand about Capitalism is that Capitalism comes after Capital. Marx goes into nauseating detail talking about Pre-existing forms of capital, like merchant’s capital, and usurer’s capital, which predate industrial capital. Some people think capitalism simply means private property plus money plus trade. No. Those things have always existed. Capitalism involves a bit more than that. At least in the Marxist analysis.

    If you’re looking for things unique to capitalism as conceived by Marx: it was proletarianization, hyperspecialization, and industrial capital.

  • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    honestly idk if weapons are an exampl of capitalism getting it right. I mean I guess, but only if you mean the bourgeois state not just capitalists of their own accord, they need a lot of prompting and funding to develop anything

  • leftofthat [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    They organize and put in work. Landlords and small business ghouls are always part of some organization, or email blast, or chamber of commerce, etc. Sometimes they need to show up to meetings and do what they’re told to do (i.e. support X bill or donate to Y cause). And they will because the benefits they receive are worth the expense.

      • leftofthat [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I don’t disagree buts that’s sort of avoiding the point. There are endless examples of large groups of non unionized workers who could collect their money and pay someone (a union rep) a full time salary to support and advance their interests. They have the cash but they still don’t execute for a variety of other reasons.

        It’s not just access to money and cash.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think this is probably the wrong question to ask unless you mean “In what ways has capitalism been historically progressive compared to feudalism?” or something along those lines. Neoliberal capitalism is purely reactionary.