[Sapper]

In _Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution_, Oxford economics professor Robert Allen notes that one of the reasons the Soviets faltered was due to technological stagnance. One reason for this -- he mentions -- is that R & D was carried out by institues instead of businesses looking for ways to make their products better to create a profit. This often meant that "the new techniques produced by the labs were often of little practical use or were too imperfectly developed to be of immediate value." Of course, Allens cites other problems such as the Cold War and other "flaws of communism."

I believe I brought this up a little before, and I'm sure you guys have another mind-blowing answer: How would a Technate ensure that the technology it creates is "practical" and of "immediate value" if it doesn't really save any one person anything? I know that efficiency is one of the goals of technocracy (right?), and researching practical projects is certainly a way to make things more efficient, but how can a technocracy ensure that it researchs practical projects?

Thanks!

[Byrath]

Well, since no one with more expertise has answered, I'll give it a shot.

Oxford economics professor Robert Allen notes that one of the reasons the Soviets faltered was due to technological stagnance.

This doesn't seem right to me, from the massive industrialization of the early 1900's to nuclear weapons to the space program, it seems to me that the Soviets were doing fine on the technological front.

how can a technocracy ensure that it researchs practical projects?

I doubt you can ever ensure that you will only research practical things, in any type of society. However, it seems to me that the natural tendency in a technate would be to stick to the practical, since the objective is not to make a profit. Under capitalism, the tendency is to focus on how to make things cheaper, not better, this is why it is such a 'throw-away world'.

Please take my words with a grain of salt, I am just starting to learn a bit about technocracy myself.

[Sapper]

from the massive industrialization of the early 1900's

That was done by "mobilizing inefficient agricultural labor" into the city, as Allen explains in the book. It had little to do with technology.

to nuclear weapons to the space program

Operation Paperclip brought many German scientists to the USSR after WWII, just as it did for America. Americans were uninterested in space, and so were only motivated to go to the moon when the USSR "challenged" them. Also, by the 1970s the Egyptians complained about the USSR's lack of technological innovation and general backwardness, when compared with the West.

I doubt you can ever ensure that you will only research practical things, in any type of society.

Allens argues that technological research is better conducted in a free market, where practical research makes money. He says that because the Soviets had no profit factor, there was no reason for them to research anything practical.

Under capitalism, the tendency is to focus on how to make things cheaper, not better, this is why it is such a 'throw-away world'.

Good point.