Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    First consider that a large proportion of innovation is performed by government institutions - they are not doing this for profit but to enhance their technology. Thus this is not a product of the free market but simply a product of human curiosity.

    You only have to look at something like, for instance, SpaceX vs NASA, to see that innovation is performed better by private institutions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    You only have to look at something like, for instance, SpaceX vs NASA, to see that innovation is performed better by private institutions.
    Well that's a very sweeping and general statement.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Well that's a very sweeping and general statement.
    It is, as is yours, but I'd challenge you to find a time when government funded innovations have come about faster than those in the private sector. Sure, for completely abstract stuff such as mathematic theories, government funding, or rich benefactors with a particular interest, is the only way it will happen. Even in that case though it's got to the point where rich benefactors, who have made their money through capitalism, are handing out bigger incentives for research than governments.

    The fact is, short of inventions based on a need by the military, such as the internet, and at one point rocketry, the private sector almost universally gets things done faster than government organisations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    evidence for this...?!

    It has been widely accepted by numerous researchers and anthropologists , who know much more than you or me, that this is the case. Start by looking at a simple Wikipedia article here (Yes it’s Wikipedia but there’s plenty of interesting citations here too for further reading)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
    “Hunting and gathering was humanity's first and most successful adaptation, occupying at least 90 percent of human history.”
    As stated by anthropologists Richard B Lee and Richard Daly in the book ‘The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter-Gatherers’.

    Then in the same article
    “Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos . . . Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men”
    Once again sourced by the same anthropologists.More information from anthropologists -
    “Doron Shultzinerand others have argued that we can learn a lot about the life-styles of prehistoric hunter-gatherers from studies of contemporary hunter-gatherers—especially their impressive levels of egalitarianism.
    Another quote -
    “Anthropologists maintain that hunter/gatherers don'thave permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any onetime depends on the task being performed. In addition to social and economicequality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, sexualparity as well.”
    This also backed up in these articles with yet even more research by various other anthropologists, scientists and researchers. https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ual-scientists From the article -
    “but the earliest human societies are likely to have been founded on enlightened egalitarian principles, according to scientists.” Also Mark Dyble, an anthropologist, states that “Dyble said that egalitarianism may even have been one of the important factors that distinguished our ancestors from our primate cousins”
    You can read the article for more information. More information in these too - https://www.theguardian.com/science/...he-flintstones
    “At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard Borshay Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requiresminimization of material possessions throughout a population. Therefore, no surplus of resources can be accumulated by any single member.”
    Furthermore, Marx and Engels done a fair amount of research on this. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism
    “Egalitarian and communist-like hunter gatherer societies have been studied and described by many well-known social anthropologists including James Woodburn, Richard Lee, Alan Barnard and, more recently, Jerome Lewis. Anthropologists such as Christopher Boehm, Chris Knightand Jerome Lewisoffer theoretical accounts to explain how communistic, assertively egalitarian social arrangements might have emerged in the prehistoric past.”
    More good sources are there. You can also read ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’ by Engels , it covers this topic. irrespective of any biases, you cannot deny the massive importance and impact of thinkers and researchers like Engels and Marx. You can also read ‘A people’s history of the world’ by Chris Harman in which there is an entire chapter on this, once again backed up by data and research by anthropologists. Also, pretty much any history book will go over hunter gatherer societies and will reinforce these notions.There’s even more research and evidence I could bring up on this, such as bringing up all of the citations from Harmans book as well as other valid sources on the internet, but I’m sure this will suffice. Anyone claiming that these things didn’t happen is clearly distorting human history to suit their own agenda and is being intellectually dishonest and to be honest, shouldn’t be taken seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    evidence for this...?!
    I have made a detailed post giving you evidence from anthropologists, scientists and researchers but apparently it is being 'reviewed' (I think because it has numerous links in it) so it's not showing for now. Much of this will make more sense by looking at that post. You can look at the wikipedia page for 'Hunter-Gatherer' and look at the various sources for more information and research conducted by anthropologists and scientists.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)

    examples? examples that can be easily verified as being anything less than trivial?
    Isn’t it obvious? For instance, in primitive society, the "economy" worked on a tribal basis and people gathered and collected what the tribe needed(food and other resources) and it was subsequently shared among the tribe, otherwise the tribe would perish. This happened due to the environment they were within. Then you can look at feudalistic society and see how people viewed the nobility and the various hierarchies to be a ‘natural occurrence’ – once again because that was the society they were presented with. Then you can look at capitalism and how people believe that it is natural for everyone to be greedy, selfish and competitive , however, this is only believe as a direct result of capitalist society actively promoting and rewarding these specific traits. The proof is a simple observation of society and its inequalities. You can also look at feral children, for instance.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how did it become this way in a community of altruistic individuals (according to your view of human nature)?
    Because material/environmental conditions allowed people to start to form it as a system. Capitalism has not been around for long, at all, especially when you look at how long modern humans have been here. Before capitalism was feudalism, before feudalism were slave societies, then when you go back enough, you have primitive hunter gatherers living in communes. As stated , capitalism came long after hunter-gather communes and the enviromental conditions were already there allowing capitalism to come into being. Those conditions being the already unequal, massively hierarchical feudalistic society. So people did not just stop being egalitarian, the various conditions were already there for various new ways of living to come into place. Humans were living in hunter gatherer communes for the majority of existence as mentioned long before classes or states existed, however approx. 10,000 years ago there was a transition from transition from hunting/gathering to agricultural production and thus various factors came into play which caused inequalities within society such as a surplus of labour.

    The point is, human beings lived in communes with egalitarian principles for the majority of existence and it is only recently(in terms of modern human existence) that circumstances within the environment have caused human society to differ and effectively become more unequal. This is the whole reason why I brought this up, because capitalists(and fascists for that matter) love to ignore human historical reality and subscribe to the pessimistic view that we are all naturally selfish and greedy, despite overwhelming research by anthropologists showing otherwise.


    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    who cares if that even is true when we live in such comfortable conditions which are constantly getting better? I know it's not like the west in every country, but let's take, for examples, india, hong kong, singapore and japan - why do you think they're rich? do you think the fact that the technical majority of the wealth of those nations is held by a smallish group mean that the nation isn't still much wealthier than it was before the beginning of its period of global competitive capitalism?

    how come this is less and less the case the more capitalism goes on, though? in the victorian times, basically one family in an entire city lived in luxury whereas everybody else had to work basically 10 hours a day and live in *tiny*, *filthy* accommodations - in the current era, we basically live at the same happiness rate as the wealthy - although our houses and our cars aren't as big or expensive, we're still eating the same amount of food to some degree, we all have indoor plumbing and electricity, we all have the internet, etc. oh woop-dee-do, the wealthiest in society sometimes have boats, or private planes, that makes them more powerful!
    Who’s ‘we’ ? A simple observation of reality shows masspoverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation, famine, etc. Even in the west there are millions in poverty, on the streets, having to use food banks, etc, and you can look at research into this by charities for instance and see statistics and what is clear is even in the west people are still struggling and barely getting by. I’m also constantly seeing reports about how more and more children and living within poverty, more people becoming homeless, etc. And this is just in the west, it’s much worse throughout the world, with many not even able to get clean drinking water. It all comes down to the economic system(capitalism) that the world is under which allows massive amounts of resources to be pitted in the hands of the few whilemany suffer. People within capitalist society have to work in terrible conditions, extremely long hours, on poor pay. Look at how people suffer within sweatshops and factories for instance, all for the profit interests of capitalist corporations.

    Even in Britain look at how workers in Sports Direct and Amazon have been treated. Plus I’ve read all sorts of reports of warehouse workers struggling. This is in Britain today, nevermind Victorian times. And you want to tell me things are getting better? Reality shows otherwise. I could easily bring up all sorts of research here showing these atrocities but I’m too tired now. A simple google search will enlighten you if you want to be enlightened that is.All of this is a product of capitalism and it is everywhere, even in social democracies like those in Scandinavia. Capitalism is inherently an unequal system. Now capitalism is withholding from the majority of people a vast improvement of their living standards, by allowing all resources to be kept in the hands of the few. The point is, there could be a better world where there is no such thing as a ‘poor’ person at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    These societies all lasted less than 5 yearsor are rebel groups. "Classless and stateless", stateless maybe, butyou would have to be genuinely stupid to think that hunter-gatherer societieswere classless. Even in Marxist stage theory admits that there is a cleardistinction between shamans/elders and the best hunters and the rest inpre-civilisation societies. Blaming the other ideas is a stupid argument,because communism should be strong enough to succeed while facing competingideologies. The fact it couldn't succeed proves it was a bad idea.

    You seem to forget that there was ****ing tons of infighting in RepublicanSpain, particularly towards the end.
    And? In the case of revolutionary Catalonia for example, it never failed because of how it worked as a system or because it was a 'bad idea', people were happy and living fine free of exploitation(even George Orwell can attest to this in his book). It failed because of large fascist influence, capitalist influence and Stalinist influence too. That is the primary "in fighting" you're talking about. But it is another example of anarchist structures/ideals within a society being implemented and working successfully. The same with the other examples I presented. Another one you can look at is the Kurds in Rojava today. For the Kurds, libertarian socialist(or anarchist) ideas are the basis for how they live. Look at how Murray Bookchin influenced them and look at how they cooperate in their communities for instance.

    And the Zapatistas are not merely a 'rebel group', they have made a network of self-governing communes and are inspired by anarchist/communist ideas and are an anti-neoliberal, anti-exploitation and anti-capitalist indigenious movement.

    For the other part of your comment, it is well regarded that class society only dates back to around approximately less than 10,000 years ago(if that), modern humans have been around for approximately 150,000 years. People lived in small nomadic groups without classes or states, this is acknowledged by numerous anthropologists such as Richard Lee, James Woodburn, Jerome Lewis, etc. 'Marxist stage theory' also acknowledges that for around 90%+ of our existence, classes and states did not exist. See the above post I made when it gets approved. Anyone with any integrity and who doesn't just distort things to suit their own agenda can clearly acknowledge this part of human history and/or do their research on their own and see how it's true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    It is, as is yours, but I'd challenge you to find a time when government funded innovations have come about faster than those in the private sector. Sure, for completely abstract stuff such as mathematic theories, government funding, or rich benefactors with a particular interest, is the only way it will happen. Even in that case though it's got to the point where rich benefactors, who have made their money through capitalism, are handing out bigger incentives for research than governments.

    The fact is, short of inventions based on a need by the military, such as the internet, and at one point rocketry, the private sector almost universally gets things done faster than government organisations.
    I raise you this dilemma; two private enterprises are both competing to produce a new technology or innovation - let's say a cure for a disease. Both are burning precious resources and time in an attempt to produce and patent this cure first (which in itself represents a significant ethical dilemma) - without this competition both bodies could be researching separate things at the same time, or combining their research powers to reach the cure sooner. In this situation capitalism is counter-productive for innovation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Artyom17)
    And? In the case of revolutionary Catalonia for example, it never failed because of how it worked as a system or because it was a 'bad idea', people were happy and living fine free of exploitation(even George Orwell can attest to this in his book). It failed because of large fascist influence, capitalist influence and Stalinist influence too. That is the primary "in fighting" you're talking about. But it is another example of anarchist structures/ideals within a society being implemented and working successfully. The same with the other examples I presented. Another one you can look at is the Kurds in Rojava today. For the Kurds, libertarian socialist(or anarchist) ideas are the basis for how they live. Look at how Murray Bookchin influenced them and look at how they cooperate in their communities for instance.
    A lot of crazy systems work short term, anarcho-capitalism can work short term. However, these systems cannot last because people will agitate and act from within and they're flimsy systems. The premise you're putting forward is that the only reason these systems failed is because other people had different ideas, which hence shows the weakness of the ideology in the real world. What? The Kurds which are at war and have lasted 5 years at most? War communism worked for a few years in spite of being a **** system which heavily impacted the proletariat that the Bolsheviks supposedly championed.

    (Original post by Artyom17)

    And the Zapatistas are not merely a 'rebel group', they have made a network of self-governing communes and are inspired by anarchist/communist ideas and are an anti-neoliberal, anti-exploitation and anti-capitalist indigenious movement.
    Oh dear, you're aware that almost all insurgent groups have this? The Mujahadeen had these, and they were a rebel group. So were the roundheads during the English civil war.

    (Original post by Artyom17)

    For the other part of your comment, it is well regarded that class society only dates back to around approximately less than 10,000 years ago(if that), modern humans have been around for approximately 150,000 years. People lived in small nomadic groups without classes or states, this is acknowledged by numerous anthropologists such as Richard Lee, James Woodburn, Jerome Lewis, etc. 'Marxist stage theory' also acknowledges that for around 90%+ of our existence, classes and states did not exist. See the above post I made when it gets approved. Anyone with any integrity and who doesn't just distort things to suit their own agenda can clearly acknowledge this part of human history and/or do their research on their own and see how it's true.
    You don't think that these nomadic groups had hierarchies? Even the last of these groups, known as habiru in the near east, often had kings and hierarchies like that. Hierarchies are literally classes. Look at the similar tribal groups in the amazon today, these quite clearly have class hierarchies, even if they don't have firm legal codes solidifying it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    I raise you this dilemma; two private enterprises are both competing to produce a new technology or innovation - let's say a cure for a disease. Both are burning precious resources and time in an attempt to produce and patent this cure first (which in itself represents a significant ethical dilemma) - without this competition both bodies could be researching separate things at the same time, or combining their research powers to reach the cure sooner. In this situation capitalism is counter-productive for innovation.
    I don't see this logic applying in reality. It's not like both enterprises would be carrying out exactly the same work. They'd likely be going at the problem from different angles, and getting near enough to as much work done as if it was one organised institution. They'd be more efficient and ruthless in their methodology; whereas government funded institutions are likely to follow every possible avenue to it's conclusion because they'll keep getting money either way, private organisations will cut the losses and move on as soon as it's not looking hopeful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I don't see this logic applying in reality. It's not like both enterprises would be carrying out exactly the same work. They'd likely be going at the problem from different angles, and getting near enough to as much work done as if it was one organised institution. They'd be more efficient and ruthless in their methodology; whereas government funded institutions are likely to follow every possible avenue to it's conclusion because they'll keep getting money either way, private organisations will cut the losses and move on as soon as it's not looking hopeful.
    You're honestly trying to say that two different enterprises pursuing the same goal doesn't produce wastage of time and resources?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    You're honestly trying to say that two different enterprises pursuing the same goal doesn't produce waste of time and resources?
    Of course they will, it's inevitable, but I don't think they'd waste any more than a single, government funded, entity, and I think they'll get the job done faster in the process.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Of course they will, it's inevitable, but I don't think they'd waste any more than a single, government funded, entity, and I think they'll get the job done faster in the process.
    Also consider that under communism there is no 'funding' per se - more an allocation of resource. You seem to be debating the productivity of privatised institutions compared to public institutions within capitalism - under communism the issue of funding doesn't really exist because all the best thinkers and necessary/relevant resources would be dedicated to research because that's the natural place for them to end up. If anything it's the most efficient way conceivable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalism is the more human system. It'll kill us all quite quickly, most likely, as it would naturally seem to exacerbate our activities' effects on the climate, but apart from that minor detail (:rolleyes:) it appeals to human desire better. Communism cannot be sustainable. To stop people from rising to power, you would need a state to control them, but then those of the state would necessarily have power. There must always be some system of authority.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Also consider that under communism there is no 'funding' per se - more an allocation of resource. You seem to be debating the productivity of privatised institutions compared to public institutions within capitalism - under communism the issue of funding doesn't really exist because all the best thinkers and necessary/relevant resources would be dedicated to research because that's the natural place for them to end up. If anything it's the most efficient way conceivable.
    I simply don't agree it would work out that way in practise. Privatised institutions funnily enough aren't very into wasting resources, it cuts into their profit margin. Your logic would work if everyone approached a problem in the same way, but in the real world that simply isn't the case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    I simply don't agree it would work out that way in practise. Privatised institutions funnily enough aren't very into wasting resources, it cuts into their profit margin. Your logic would work if everyone approached a problem in the same way, but in the real world that simply isn't the case.
    But everyone in my scenario is approaching the same problem. Whatever happens you're only going to get one cure out of it - at any rate if you wanted to approach the problem in different ways you could give different teams within the same institution different approaches to try (that would be more efficient than two completely different institutions - at the very least they could share information).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    But everyone in my scenario is approaching the same problem. Whatever happens you're only going to get one cure out of it - at any rate if you wanted to approach the problem in different ways you could give different teams within the same institution different approaches to try (that would be more efficient than two completely different institutions - at the very least they could share information).
    Again, your operating in a very idealistic world here. Your assuming perfect sharing of information, that people will use their time as efficiently and dismiss ideas and ruthlessly when there aren't shareholders to please, that there'd still be as much resources going into these problems in a communist state as their would be in a capitalist one. Sure, it's a nice ideal, but as with most of communism, I don't feel it transfers at all well to the real world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    Again, your operating in a very idealistic world here. Your assuming perfect sharing of information, that people will use their time as efficiently and dismiss ideas and ruthlessly when there aren't shareholders to please, that there'd still be as much resources going into these problems in a communist state as their would be in a capitalist one. Sure, it's a nice ideal, but as with most of communism, I don't feel it transfers at all well to the real world.
    Could you please justify your final statement?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Could you please justify your final statement?
    In what way?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    In what way?
    Explain why it isn't applicable and solely operates as an ideal. It is a common assumption that communism only works in theory but that assumption is rarely challenged.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathematising)
    Explain why it isn't applicable and solely operates as an ideal. It is a common assumption that communism only works in theory but that assumption is rarely challenged.

    How do you ensure that the fundamental principle is applied, when necessarily people with power are required to apply it. They will surely abuse this power sooner or later and take more than what they need and not give all that they can.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.