innovation/invention without capitalism

[Uncle]

I keep seeing a lot of rhetoric online about how horrible capitalism is and how everything would be so much better without it

this is not necessarily in favor of promoting any alternatives, it's strictly the idea that capitalism is bad and needs to be torn down

do I just not understand what capitalism is? I look around me and every object I see is a result of capitalism, because somebody saw a need and a potential market for it, so they got dollar signs in their eyes and decided to make cell phones and computers and ergonomic desk chairs and cost effective cups etc

I don't doubt that if we were operating under some other system, stuff would still get done and things would still get made, but to argue that it would happen to the same degree, or even better? it seems ludicrous





I say hey I want to go home and play assassin's creed which was made by the efforts of 1000 people working together because they realized they could sell this thing for money and fund their collective existence, and grow the company to make even more games to fund even more peoples' existences

and these anti capitalist people say "those games still could've been made, imagine how much better it would be if everyone didn't hate their job and were just doing this as a hobby for the joy of creation," and I just don't see that happening

I think the adversity of worrying about losing your job is necessary to some extent to keep everyone focused; imagine this hypothetical system where no one NEEDS to be there to earn money, and egos flare up and a dispute happens, and the lead programmer or artist simply walks away because they really don't need that job and could just as easily relax and do nothing

you'd have people arriving and leaving constantly, the project would be directionless

I'm not in favor of crunch that actively damages a person and their work/life balance, but in order for projects to come out in a timely manner it's important for there to be some level of drive to stay at a good pace and finish things up, and again if you don't NEED the job you can just tell your "boss" sorry dude, that's not the pace I'm working at and you'll get your new textures when I feel like it

 


anti capitalist people say "humans get bored with nothing to work on, if no one had to worry about whether they can afford basic necessities they would still create lots of cool things just for the fun of it"

but...look around and realize those people exist RIGHT NOW, there are rich people and their descendants who don't need to worry, and there are people on permanent government assistance who don't need to worry

can anyone point to any examples of amazing movies or video games that have been created by these people whose lives are completely taken care of?

Notch got rich making Minecraft and hasn't made anything worthwhile since...why hasn't he gotten bored with his perfect life yet and created an amazing new game that everyone loves? we have evidence that he's a good enough coder and creator, what happened?

I know he's just one guy, but seriously

 

is there any evidence that humans without earthly cares are sufficiently motivated to create cool things up to the standard we've been enjoying in the modern era?

[james]

You say this on Forum where everyone provides content for free.

Nintex could monetize his political fan fiction but instead we feast on the fruits of his labor for nothing but vibes

[Uncle]

You say this on Forum where everyone provides content for free.

Nintex could monetize his political fan fiction but instead we feast on the fruits of his labor for nothing but vibes

if creating an amazing game that millions of people enjoy was as easy as posting a quick text comment on a forum, well

[Kurt Russell]

anti capitalist people say "humans get bored with nothing to work on, if no one had to worry about whether they can afford basic necessities they would still create lots of cool things just for the fun of it"

but...look around and realize those people exist RIGHT NOW, there are rich people and their descendants who don't need to worry, and there are people on permanent government assistance who don't need to worry

can anyone point to any examples of amazing movies or video games that have been created by these people whose lives are completely taken care of?

Notch got rich making Minecraft and hasn't made anything worthwhile since...why hasn't he gotten bored with his perfect life yet and created an amazing new game that everyone loves? we have evidence that he's a good enough coder and creator, what happened?

Wraith annihilated.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Activities have extrinsic and intrinsic motivators, and different people will resonate with different motivations to do things.

People motivated by extrinsic rewards - eg cash - aren't going to do that thing if they have no reason to because the thing doesn't offer enough satisfaction on its own to be worth doing. Having said that, cash isn't the only extrinsic motivator, even under capitalism; people will do things for clout, for fame, for prestige, for recognition, to get laid, for love, for belief and ideology, out of fear, etc etc etc.

Incredibly complex systems such as developing a AAA game don't inherently need cash, but they do need hierarchical structures and motivators so that the things nobody finds intrinsically rewarding actually get done. You can build the pyramids if you have slaves who are gonna get whipped to death if they don't get it fucking done, after all.

For your mention about there being a load of rich people out there but not creating content... I think you'd be surprised how many people in the entertainment fields or 'indie' creators (writers, game developers, musicians) come from extremely well off families / partners who are basically funding them doing it long enough to be successful.

[Uncle]

For your mention about there being a load of rich people out there but not creating content... I think you'd be surprised how many people in the entertainment fields or 'indie' creators (writers, game developers, musicians) come from extremely well off families / partners who are basically funding them doing it long enough to be successful.

to meet the requirements of the project having been completed without capitalism, wouldn't it need to be a solo project? the first time they commission art for their project, they're helping support the livelihood of someone who might not necessarily want to do that work but needed the cash. even distribution and marketing fall under this, no one does anything alone. release your game on steam and a portion of sales goes to support all the features that maintain the platform like server space, bandwidth, rudimentary marketing, metrics etc

or decide you're dedicated to releasing this game without ANY capitalism at all, so you set up your own website. whoops, you had to buy a server to run it on, and somebody made that server for profit.
 

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

I mean... computing is only really getting mature enough as a medium for democratisation to have started; you could have said the same thing about writers prior to the printing press, then bam! penny dreadfuls flood the market.

Its getting to the point where its feasible to 'one man band' a game but not do all the heavy lifting yourself; you have open source game engines, you have no cut distribution, you have a swathe of assets in the public domain. More complex projects can be genuine collaborations; you just have to look at some of the stuff the modding scene has come up with. The biggest risk is again in motivation - if people aren't 'feeling it', they're not going to be very productive.

A fully tricked out Skyrim has very little Bethesda content left in it for example; but the game they did release sparked enough of a fire in some people they went and did their own thing, which others then built on, and others then built on that, and now you've got fucking Dark Souls with the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor and really fucking nice graphics

[Uncle]

well part of the question is whether suddenly abandoning capitalism would lead to the same (or better) standard in media we've been enjoying

I understand that there are a lot of great indie games out there, and plenty created just out of passion

we still get Stardew Valley and Terraria, but do we still get Breath of the Wild? Elden Ring? Horizon: Forbidden West?

do we get Avengers Endgame or The Batman?

if we hadn't had capitalism already for over a hundred years, would the technology even exist now that enables us to create things like these? you talk about the democratisation of computing with open source engines and such, but all of that began rooted in a profit motive and iterated on over decades in order to reach this point. open source engines borrow ideas from profit-motivated engines which set a high standard that people expect.

[james]

Social media is pure communism.

98% of the content is done for free. You can go viral, be seen by 72 million people, and receive a big fat nothing in return. You do it for humanity.

[Uncle]

Social media is pure communism.

98% of the content is done for free. You can go viral, be seen by 72 million people, and receive a big fat nothing in return. You do it for humanity.

"wow, this tweet sure blew up!  I would be remiss if I didn't say I have a new book coming out, so be sure to wishlist it on amazon!  "

[Polident Hive]

Tetris was made under communism. Checkmate.

[james]

Social media is pure communism.

98% of the content is done for free. You can go viral, be seen by 72 million people, and receive a big fat nothing in return. You do it for humanity.

"wow, this tweet sure blew up!  I would be remiss if I didn't say I have a new book coming out, so be sure to wishlist it on amazon!  "

And the other 98%?

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

well part of the question is whether suddenly abandoning capitalism would lead to the same (or better) standard in media we've been enjoying

I understand that there are a lot of great indie games out there, and plenty created just out of passion

we still get Stardew Valley and Terraria, but do we still get Breath of the Wild? Elden Ring? Horizon: Forbidden West?

do we get Avengers Endgame or The Batman?

if we hadn't had capitalism already for over a hundred years, would the technology even exist now that enables us to create things like these? you talk about the democratisation of computing with open source engines and such, but all of that began rooted in a profit motive and iterated on over decades in order to reach this point. open source engines borrow ideas from profit-motivated engines which set a high standard that people expect.

Okay, so are you talking about a post-capitalist society, or a parallel constructed non-capitalist society?

Because like I said, you wouldn't get highly complex projects done without the proper motivators, but you could get 'a batman' film via collaboration; someone writes a 'batman' book, someone else fucking loves it and it inspires them to turn it into  graphic novel, that reaches more people, someone else is inspired to want to turn it into a film and puts the word out, people want to act in it, people want to do set design for it, people want to do the scoring for it, people want to edit it, people want to do the vfx for it.

You end up with multiple versions of that original story, and of those versions, some people might say "Hey, that film was great except for the editing" and re-edit, someone else might redo the VFX, someone else might recast a character.

All of the above is more or less doable today with contemporary technology, and the kind of thing someone might do as a passion project.
This is the kind of thinking creative commons is built on - remixing and adapting others work, and eventually iteratively improving. Same deal with open source software.
If your motivation isn't for money - let's say its a 'prestige' based system, you're not going to care if someone is making a film of your work; if anything it adds to your prestige, not diminishes it in a way that someone making money off of your uncredited ideas does not.

Would it end up as the same product as our universes The Batman? No, obviously not.
Would you end up with something thats probably pretty good? I'd suspect probably yes.

The flaw to all of this supposition is obviously that you either need to be talking about a post-scarcity society where everyones hierarchy of needs are met as a baseline (a post capitalist society where you spend your time as you choose), or a parallel society whose motivators are as powerful as the concept of money for labour; even things like 'social credit' are basically capitalism under a different monicker.

[james]

how much porn do you pay for

[Uncle]

Okay, so are you talking about a post-capitalist society, or a parallel constructed non-capitalist society?

I'm not sure, that would depend on the claims being made by the person arguing for abolishing capitalism. in the absence of a concrete claim, I'm just casting around for any argument that would really make sense and prove them correct

it's hard to predict how a society would've developed differently because we don't live in that alternate universe, and any examples of life without capitalism are apparently tainted by bad leaders/policies/not TRUE socialism (assuming socialism is the ideal), so there's no evidence of how things shake out in the real world

it might be more reasonable to claim that at this point, we're pretty well established in technology and can jettison profit motives and move to a more evolved society, capitalism is no longer needed, it served its purpose and got us a number of pretty good things but socialism can take it from here

but I feel like this also relies on the desire to know what we're getting ourselves into, knowing the type and quality of media and other products created by a society where everyone's needs are met, which circles back to wanting evidence of how things might develop under the first scenario



if the idea is that maturation of media enables good quality hobbyist content without needing to involve capitalism in any way, i.e. that we got printing presses, we got digital distribution, we got open source engines, we got affordable cameras and mics, so now anyone can make anything they want...if capitalism jumpstarted us these things but we've evolved past the need for profit motivation surrounding them, isn't rejecting capitalism saying that we expect to never encounter anything new that might benefit from the rapid innovation that comes from a capitalistic profit motive?

I'm sure plenty of people would say "oh noooo quantum VR will develop slightly more slowly in exchange for billions of people enjoying a higher standard of life, the horror" which could be valid, if you could guarantee that higher standard of life, which is what I'm not fully convinced of

[Uncle]

Tetris was made under communism. Checkmate.

Tetris really is interesting as I think it's one of the most popular/influential cultural sensations to come out of a society that doesn't claim to be capitalist

Alexey Pajitnov's work was owned by the state, who were free to do whatever they wanted with it, so they decided to sell the rights to western companies, who then had a strong profit motivation to add music and graphics and features and marketing and distribution to make it a global hit

Alexey did not benefit personally from his creation until he moved to the US, where he helped form The Tetris Company and later worked for Microsoft for many years on puzzle games



maybe Alexey's motivations in moving to the US were screwed up, maybe he shouldn't have been chasing that dollar, and instead learned to love whatever prestige he earned, and continued making games on behalf of the state for the simple joy of creation

[who is ted danson?]

https://twitter.com/DarkMeme1988/status/1558155653553725442

[Potato]

The problem with communist/post-capitalist societies is that to keep innovation moving you need to have a central core of people making decisions about where investment should be made and which innovations to pursue to keep society moving forward.

This just doesn't work because human greed, nepotism and corruption step in and screw it all up. This is illustrated by multiple communist failures over the years and the complete inability of nominally communist societies to throw off the yoke of capitalist behaviours. In fact, most so-called communist countries are just totalitarian capitalist dictatorships dressed up as communism (I'm looking at you China).

In the centrally planned economy model, who picks the people who will dictate where investment is made? How does such a society avoid nepotism and corruption?

Sci-fi writers have usually acknowledged this problem and solve it by having an all seeing, all knowing AI in charge. But even then, who wants Google or Facebook having (even more) control of the world?

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

it might be more reasonable to claim that at this point, we're pretty well established in technology and can jettison profit motives and move to a more evolved society, capitalism is no longer needed, it served its purpose and got us a number of pretty good things but socialism can take it from here

I mean... to some extent, capitalism vs socialism is individualism vs collectivism, but there are more than two potential options than between working to enrich yourself in a zero-sum environment, or working for the state / society / commune if we're hypothesising future societies to evolve into.

[OnlyRegret]

pretty big chunks of research come from government funded projects I believe, can't really call it capitalism or communism
space race was a big deal in advancement/research and that came from big government bucks spent to stick it to the Ivan Ivanovich's, more nationalistic than anything

[OnlyRegret]

also, plenty of people who made a mark on the sciences died poor or never appreciated till years down the road

[Tasty]

I think capitalism has been Pwetty Gwud for humanity overall.

Doesn't mean it's perfect, or that it's the One Stop Shop answer for all our problems. Humans are flawed, whatever we invent is going to be flawed in some way.

I think we realized debtor's prisons were a bad idea for instance, and we're in the middle of realizing strong antitrust enforcement is a prerequisite for a healthy economy.

[Tasty]

I also think if we ever hit the manufacturing singularity where machines displace humans for 50%+ of manual labor jobs, the interests of the unemployed and potentially-starving humans take precedence over whatever economic model we happen to be using. The idea to integrate some sort of socialization, such as a universal basic income, would have to be taken very seriously.

[Nintex]

It's all mixed up now anyways. What good is conservatism when there's nothing to conserve like your own house or land?
What good is communism if it mostly serves as cheap labor for capitalist societies?

The big factor in my view is the ability to raise capital, take Silicon Valley for example. The only reason all these platforms and start-ups exist is because they can easily raise capital and accumulate resources.
The same for a bunch of NGO's and other organizations. If groups like BLM didn't have big corporate bucks behind them, they wouldn't be able to exist.

In that sense democracy as we knew it is all but extinct because the power no longer comes from controlling the manual labour of the masses or convincing them.
These days the power comes from controlling the flow of money, resources and information aka "The System".

China has pretty much perfected this but in many countries various groups are also close to achieving this level of control.
Just look at how quickly society was (and still is) taken over during COVID by power hungry politicians and consultants.
Not to mention how our version of the culture war has spun completely out of control.

[Uncle]

also, plenty of people who made a mark on the sciences died poor or never appreciated till years down the road

for this to be an argument to abolish capitalism, there would have to be some evidence that another system would've better elevated them

who can say whether there'd be plenty of people who have tremendous potential who would simply refuse to reach for it if all their needs are met? maybe due to the mentality of being raised in a situation where it feels like everything is "good enough" and significant improvements are unnecessary, or maybe just due to sleeping and eating potato chips all day

I do think it's better to meet needs than allow people to starve, but I don't think that necessarily correlates 1:1 with the number of brilliant/creative people who rise out of that society, sometimes adversity is the best motivator

it can be hard to create meaningful art without suffering that gave you something worth saying

[Nintex]

People always made the biggest advances in science in time of great need or struggle, such as war or natural disasters.

The internet and modern day computing was basically a weapon created during the cold war and it now literally runs everything.
A lot of our other technologies, such as SUVs, microwaves, radar, nuclear energy etc. all go back to WW2.

But then again, a lot of wars such as WW2 and other conquests have an economic basis also.

it was Robert Mcnamara I believe who turned war into a spreadsheet during the Vietnam war.
Calculations about wins, losses, production etc. had always existed but not in a way that it would determine the entire course and strategy of a war.

[benjipwns]

Providing content for "free" isn't anti-capitalist or communist, as the latter position is that there should be a single monopoly that provides everything and only that which it wishes to provide and the former position is rarely elaborated on outside of advocating for the latter. Social media isn't remotely communism because there is no single entity (except the social forces behind capitalism that control all of our lives and erase free will which is why eliminating free will doesn't make you less free) dictating all posts that are made to it and forcing all users to post per the dictates. You don't produce art or science under communism unless the state orders you to produce it and then you produce the art and science you are ordered to produce.

Capitalism is trade, communism is single monopoly distribution. Ironically, the tankies are actually right, international communism has been eroded because the Soviets, Vietnam, China, etc. all allowed small amounts of capitalism. Even North Korea, despite the clear superiority of Juche, has refused to cut itself off from capitalism. The question of whether or not communism can do something is irrelevant because it clearly fails on its own terms unless conditions are perfect even when the totalitarian slave labor system communism demands is setup and enforced on the population.

[Nintex]

Communism is the ultimate middle managers dream

[Uncle]

You don't produce art or science under communism unless the state orders you to produce it and then you produce the art and science you are ordered to produce.

I think about this regularly in context of this rhetoric

capitalism is defined as

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

so say you live in a completely capitalism-free society, no one has private ownership of everything

you work your job, you go home, everything you need is provided to you

but you're a bit of an artist and you like to doodle sometimes for fun

and one day your neighbor sees your art and says "well shit man that's pretty nice, I'd like to have some of that on my wall to pretty up the place, maybe a picture of my dog"

and you say "well I only really make it for myself and subjects I'm interested in, sorry but I don't really care about your dog"

and your neighbor says "alright, how about this, I will go hungry for one night this week and save one of our state-provided steaks to give to you, if you paint me a picture of my dog"

with this transaction, you've re-introduced the seed of capitalism

you could say well that's not full-on capitalism yet because there isn't competition, but it's not hard to see how this could spread among a community, word goes around that you're doing art in exchange for food and others start paying you, but some other dude is also a decent artist and starts undercutting you, etc

before long you've got an entire subversive community engaging in private ownership and transactions that the state needs to quash immediately, because everyone there has a slightly higher standard of life than surrounding communities with less art

[benjipwns]

so say you live in a completely capitalism-free society, no one has private ownership of everything

you work your job, you go home, everything you need is provided to you

but you're a bit of an artist and you like to doodle sometimes for fun

and one day your neighbor sees your art and says "well shit man that's pretty nice, I'd like to have some of that on my wall to pretty up the place, maybe a picture of my dog"

FACT CHECK: The state would not inefficiently provide this person with the means to produce art that the community is not requesting already. Also, as a worker under communism he would not idly produce anything unless the community requested him to.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

You know you're wrong.

[Uncle]

so say you live in a completely capitalism-free society, no one has private ownership of everything

you work your job, you go home, everything you need is provided to you

but you're a bit of an artist and you like to doodle sometimes for fun

and one day your neighbor sees your art and says "well shit man that's pretty nice, I'd like to have some of that on my wall to pretty up the place, maybe a picture of my dog"

FACT CHECK: The state would not inefficiently provide this person with the means to produce art that the community is not requesting already. Also, as a worker under communism he would not idly produce anything unless the community requested him to.

I thought the benefit of these other societies that people theorycraft is more leisure time to pursue your own interests? since you're not busying yourself with just trying to stay alive

[benjipwns]

I thought the benefit of these other societies that people theorycraft is more leisure time to pursue your own interests? since you're not busying yourself with just trying to stay alive

Laboring to produce art is not leisure time, it's labor.

[BIONIC]

My emotional labor is not free 

[benjipwns]

My emotional labor is not free 

THANK 👏 YOU 👏

[Tasty]

Art free of commercial aspirations is often seen as the purest of art.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

so say you live in a completely capitalism-free society, no one has private ownership of everything

you work your job, you go home, everything you need is provided to you

but you're a bit of an artist and you like to doodle sometimes for fun

and one day your neighbor sees your art and says "well shit man that's pretty nice, I'd like to have some of that on my wall to pretty up the place, maybe a picture of my dog"

and you say "well I only really make it for myself and subjects I'm interested in, sorry but I don't really care about your dog"

and your neighbor says "alright, how about this, I will go hungry for one night this week and save one of our state-provided steaks to give to you, if you paint me a picture of my dog"

with this transaction, you've re-introduced the seed of capitalism

you could say well that's not full-on capitalism yet because there isn't competition, but it's not hard to see how this could spread among a community, word goes around that you're doing art in exchange for food and others start paying you, but some other dude is also a decent artist and starts undercutting you, etc

before long you've got an entire subversive community engaging in private ownership and transactions that the state needs to quash immediately, because everyone there has a slightly higher standard of life than surrounding communities with less art

The difference with capital is basically liquidity of assets; 'money' is easily transferable, and (more or less) holds its value across those transfers.
It allows for 'wealth creation' via middle men who produce nothing but exploit the gap between supply and demand.

A barter / favour / prestige based system isn't the same thing; if I say "Bro, do me a favour, draw a picture of my dog and I'll do something I as your neightbour know about you personally that you want, and we will agree with what the value of that service might be between ourselves". In your example, giving up a steak.
The utility of that steak is not 'fixed'. If that painter fucking LOVES STEAK, they might find that a bargain, because they just can't get enough fucking steak.
If that painter is a vegan, your offer ain't worth shit.

Currency (capital) facilitates trade, because if I gave you a transferable credit note for one steak rather than the steak itself, you could (as a vegan) take that note, and then go find else who fucking loves steak but has more vegan cheese alternative than they want, and so generate profit - I can exploit the desirability of 'steak' with a third party versus their indifference to vegan cheese, to make more vegan cheese than I could have by painting for that vegan cheese owner directly.

Just as you can produce something for free under a capitalist system (but can't then easily prevent someone else who obtains that produce from making their own profits from it), you can produce in lieu of something else under a non-capitalist system for someone else (because you cant easily prevent people from having a concept of 'their own time' to do what they want to in).

The 'post scarcity' version of this wouldn't be you asking specifically for a painting of your dog; if you like someones piece of art, you can have a copy of it for free. IF you want a specific subject of that painting, you can ask, but nobody is obliged to do it, and theres no real way to incentivise them to do it if they don't want to anyway; you either hope someone chooses to paint your dog and hope you like that artists style, or you learn to art yourself and cover your own subjects.