Without competition, what would be the major spur for innovation?
Suppose you have communism, and you make a car. What's the incentive to ever improve on it and not just keep doing things the same way over and over again? I'm not saying there would be no advancement, there obviously would be because it would interest people, but the incentive would be drastically reduced. The incentive for advancement in the USSR was competing with Western capitalism, after all.
Other urls found in this thread:
wto.org
twitter.com
Improving the quality of life for the working class. If the vehicle can be manufactured in a superior manner while still being produced in a manner in accordance with worker's control of the means of production and equitable distribution of said car among the population then you should do it.
A safer and easier to use product. Who wants to kill their customers?
Personal wish to succeed. The existence of personal competition instead of economic competition.
Why do things constantly need to be improved upon?
The thing about capitalism is you're constantly getting new models and new editions of products with only the smallest difference, put out solely for the purpose of squeezing those extra dollars out of customers.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If an innovation is truly needed, it will come about.
But eventually those small differences add up, so if you're not a retard who keeps buying the latest, say, Iphone every year and you instead buy the second newest generation every 4 years or so then you're going to have a better product at a good price, and the "innovatiom" can incrmenetally continue to make better and better products without your active yearly support.
And I'm not saying Apple makes good products, I'm just using it as an example.
>Improving the quality of life for the working class. If the vehicle can be manufactured in a superior manner while still being produced in a manner in accordance with worker's control of the means of production and equitable distribution of said car among the population then you should do it.
What a big pile of shit.
Convenience. A lot of convenience adds up
But technological advances are usually expensive to initially recreate since there's no way to effectively mass produce them
So what's the incentive to spend the resources to make a technological advancement when you can keep making the same product at a lower production price? Under capitalism the incentive is supply and demand; consumers with extra money to spend will buy the new and expensive product, and thus companies will have monetary incentive to produce more of the item in question. But under communism, there is no monetary incentive. The only incentive is improving the quality of life down the line, but a better life next year doesn't put bread on the table this year.
>Without competition, what would be the major spur for innovation?
The same thing that spurred innovation before competition existed - need- you moron.
"muh competition" is literally capitalist propaganda
Did you read the second to last sentence of the OP? I didn't say there would be no innovation, just that it would be radically reduced. Certainly innovation increased rapidly with capitalism.
The only reason capitalism sees more innovation than earlier stages is because capitalism gave more people access to capital compared with feudalism and its maintenance of wealth in castes. If anything communism would be the most innovative stage possible, since invention isn't limited to the minority of capitalists.
Is Cuba's lack of advancement just clever smoke and mirrors set up by the US government as anti-communist propoganda?
Capitalism gave people more access to capital via competition....
If "clever smoke and mirrors" means "setting up illegal embargoes and restricting their trade markets ergo limiting their material wealth far below what it should be" then yes.
In fact once competition becomes a factor capital necessarily circulates less.
>illegal embargoes
Illegal under what jurisdiction?
The United Nations has voted in near unanimous majority every year since its imposition that the US must end its embargo because it is in direct violation of the UN charter and international law.
Allowing competition is pretty much the source of capitalism. For instance, under the old system, kings would give patents (monopolies) to certain guild-corporations in exchange for a lot of money, prohibiting competition. Abolition of mass use of these things was probably the single biggest source of capitalism
>The US doesn't trade with Cuba even though the rest of the world can, therefore it's all America's fault that they're technologically half a century behind
I bet next you're gonna say Cuba isn't real communism
Who cares what are they gonna do shop somewhere else. HA!
>Allowing competition is pretty much the source of capitalism.
No, primitive accumulation and private ownership of the means of production are the source of capitalism.
The rest of the world CAN trade with Cuba, IF they can make it through .... what .... the embargo. Meanwhile, it's literally illegal for a McDonald's in Europe to give a ketchup packet to a Cuba national IN Europe.
Kindly kill yourself
According to who Marx? Keep it you yourself pinko. Competition is an important part of capitalism.
t. Adam Smith.
You have to go back
wto.org
What are you talking about.
>No, primitive accumulation and private ownership of the means of production are the source of capitalism.
And competition is what allows that to happen. Without it, you can't get into the market without going through a guild or a patent.
Don't get mad at me for not engaging with your misrepresentation of capitalism.
congratulations, you've discovered you're a capitalist! it's incredible that you made this self-discovery so quickly
th-those facts are just western propoganda! Wake up y-you dumb sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-sheep! :^)