[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 655 KB, 300x168, 1360595314628.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5897625 No.5897625 [Reply] [Original]

What advances scientific research faster, capitalism or socialism?
Under capitalism and private research, would the groundbreaking discoveries become public anyway or could they stay secret?
Do you think it will be possible to sustain "communism" once we reach a sufficient level of technology?

>> No.5897630

>>5897625
Communism would be the scenario that Marx destroyed because he wanted to be an agent of history: socialism would be the working class dictatorship to counter the power of the corporations, but this reveal changed the course of history and communism was demonized.

>> No.5897638

>What advances scientific research faster, capitalism or socialism?

Capitalism, are you retarded?

>> No.5897646

socialism.

the us only beat russia because of government backed funding.

>> No.5897658

>>5897646
... so then capitalism

>> No.5897667

>>5897646
The also US beat Russia because they persecuted scientists who's views they felt didnt align with Marxism (which is pretty weird) - i.e. dudes like Vavliov

>> No.5897672

>>5897667
Every scientist is a nazi.

>> No.5897681

Capitalism if there is profit to be made in the final product.
Otherwise socialism wins out by a bit.

>> No.5897694

>What advances scientific research faster, capitalism or socialism?
The elimination of layers of [uncooperative] management and feeders (which is socialism -- a word not to be confused with state planning and Stalinism) certainly seems like a recipe for rapid research.

>Under capitalism and private research
Socialist research is also private research.
>would the groundbreaking discoveries become public anyway or could they stay secret?
As is already the case, some are secret, some are made public. This is the case with both modes of production.

>Do you think it will be possible to sustain "communism" once we reach a sufficient level of technology?
Well it's pretty much part of the definition, innit.

>>>/pol/

>> No.5897707

>>5897638
this

>> No.5897751

Socialism is slow by nature. If you want everyone to fulfill a role in society, ie work, your workplace cant be that technological. If technology moves too fast, the workplace/education can't keep up with job demands.

They can have brilliant scientists/engineers, but without demand and public/private backing is all for naught. A new technology comes for automakers, and it makes them cheaper, more efficient to build in less time with less manpower. Capitalism can account such a volatile workplace, socialism cant (*at least in this day and age)

>> No.5897787

>>5897751
But science requires massive capital and infrastructure, and it would take a purely capitalist society decades or centuries to produce reliable infrastructure capable of sustaining profitable schools of scientific advancement.

there has to be some money up front.

>> No.5897808

>>5897787
>Thinking that capitalism is inferior at productive capital accumulation