Capitalism Does Not Drive Innovation

Post Reply New Topic

I have identified the author of the OP's video.

Full Name: J.T. Chapman
Nationality: American
Residence: Texas, United States
Quote: "On YouTube and Nebula as Second Thought.  I cover lefty topics at a 101 level."

Second Thought is a channel devoted education and analysis of current events from a Leftist perspective.  J.T. is currently making political content from a Leftist's point of view and is a self-described Socialist.

Socialism is, by definition, antithetical to Capitalism.

Thus, Mr. Chapman's own personal bias is showing throughout the video.

No s**t. But the question is: are the points presented valid?
You're acting like "socialist" is an identity that inadvertently colours ones perception, rather than a political position.

As you say, "No S███".  While "Socialism" is an Economic/Political system, "Socialist" is an identity; and any identity will color one's perceptions, inadvertently or not.
From a Socialist's perspective, yes; from a Capitalist's perspective, no.

But either side has arguments as to why the points are valid or not (or valid with caveats).
Even Marx wrote about Capitalism being the most dynamic mode of production the world had ever seen - what's the difference between the capitalism Marx praised for its innovativeness and what this guy describes? - just this guy's perspective, or did capitalism change? (Given how dynamic it is according to Marx, it would have been likely to change in 150 years. Even the capitalism Lenin describes is already different, further along a trajectory).

The *profit motive* sparks innovation.

Do you want to be RICH? More possessions? Bigger home? More vacations? Live the dream life?

Yeah, okay, that's just a misconception due to high correlation in the past. But correlation is not causation, the profi motive does not cause innovation. Innovation is by-product, but if it makes financial sense to stifle innovation, then the profit motive stifles innovation.

If it makes sense to buy up a small company which has invented a better mousetrap than the one's you're producing, than that's what you have to do. It might not make sense to actually produce the better moustrap, because you'd have to invest in new production facilities etc. - but you own the patent now, so no need to worry about anyone else coming up with the new mousetrap.
Maybe invest in an R&D department, to come up with new mousetraps, and get them patented, just to be sure. Yeah, no, a new factory would be too expensive and since no one can produce a competitive new mousetrap, the old, crappy ones are good enough.



The profit motive also correlates with rent-seeking, human-rights-violations in east-asian countries and the destruction of an environment favourable to organized human civilization.
Whether it *always* leads to rent-seeking and monopoly formation is up for debate. Lenin thought so. The tech-giants of facebook and Google prove his point. We'll see.

I think his conclusion is a little overarching, but he makes good points. Capitalism, and in particular Neo-liberal Capitalism, does not bring benefits in and of itself. It really just serves a small portion of society with very narrow goals.

If you cherry pick, then yes. But slavery was a capitalist system to address labor. Never heard of a rich slave. It also sparked a civil war.

Personally, I don't need to be rich. I certainly just don't want more stuff. I just need a comfortable place to live--1,000ft^2 would work.

The problem with the idea that only capitalism leads to a rewarding life is hard to support. There are many more countries that rank at a higher quality of life index than the US. Those "socialist" European countries do very well.

So, then suddenly only capitalists can have unbiased opinions on capitalism? If socialist criticisms of capitalism can be dismissed as a result of socialist bias, is it then can capitalist criticism of socialism be dismissed as a result of their bias as capitalists? Can I dismiss any capitalist criticism of socialism as being grounded completely in "personal bias"? I think not.

Did we consider that the author likely developed a critical view of capitalism first and then became a socialist, like that majority of socialists who were born in capitalist-dominated countries? This would mean that his dim view of capitalism came first and is not a result of socialist bias, but rather that the distaste for capitalism helped lead them to identify as a socialist.

I'm not sure what you're driving at here if not that.

Yea. The reason socialism is gaining popularity again is the fact that all around the globe, governments continually fail to reign in it's most malignant, destructive, and short-sighted elements. When the very rich collectively drive another group of people's living standard down in the name of greed people tend to not be very happy about it. Just look at the decline in life expectancy in the US. Look at the ever growing homelessness, even before the pandemic.
Not good.

I don't believe socialism will come via a revolution. That will just cause chaos. It will have to come through more gradual changes. Maybe there is a compromise that can stabilize capitalism. I pray so. Otherwise things could get ugly again. The corporate-owned mainstream media is in denial. They refuse to talk about anti-capitalist protests happening all over the world, India, Columbia, etc...

Neoliberalism is the reason socialism is getting popular. People also feel pretty helpless when capitalism can't even be reformed because right wing propaganda has gotten so good at making a segment of the population terrified of even modest change. It's to the point they are willing to stage a half-assed insurrection because an election didn't go their way. This is even as the world falls apart around them under the current neoliberal status-quo.

I can't think of a worse way to hamper innovation than refusing to pay people who innovate.

I'm in the early stages of trying to obtain a patent that will likely cost me thousands. I sure as hell want my money back and more.....otherwise I'll keep it a secret and nobody can benefit from it.

The problem is the low hanging fruit is mostly gone. Really revolutionary technological breakthroughs now require a lot of research funding. A single person can still invent clever gadgets, but major endeavors like renewable energy or space exploration require massive funding. That patents always go to the wealthy financiers, not the scientists and engineers themselves. Also, government funds quite a bit of basic research that capitalists get for free. Also, a lot of entrepreneurial inventions these days are just ways to exploit people more (i.e. gig companies). The benefit-to-cost ratio for society as a whole isn't so great always. Flexible work helps some people that don't absolutely depend on steady income because they have other sources, but at the same time it seems to replace more stable jobs.

Having so many innovations achieved to the point where regular folk can no longer innovate any further by themselves isn't really a bad thing. It just shows how advance a society is.

And you can do that. Jonas Salk gave away his rights to the polio vaccine, which is what he thought was good. And there is also public investment in innovation that is also shared (the internet, GPS, etc). That benefits the whole of society and creates more innovation.