"Capitalism breeds innovation"

People love to bring this up to defend capitalism. "Socialism kills innovation!" they like to say. "Look at IBM, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google... Capitalism clearly creates the kind of incentive structure that leads to innovation!"

What innovation is that? The reality is that computers and the internet came out of the state sector. By and large, what those companies did was tweak details and build upon the actually innovative state-funded and -developed technologies, privatising the profits from what was a socialised cost.

I think a great modern example that may put things in perspective is the private sector now foraging into the space business. Fifty years from now (assuming climate change hasn't regressed our civilization too much) when these businesses have taken off more fully and people at large may actually use them more directly, you will have individuals which haven't even been born yet talking about "Capitalism! Innovation!" forgetting that the real innovation came through the state sector, first through war (rockets) and then through entities like NASA, USSR and etc.

Another example is the genetics and genomics industry which is taking off as we speak. The big innovation steps occurred through huge government programs such as the Human Genome Project and smaller state-funded research projects conducted in institutes and universities all over the world. But, again, fifty years from now people are gonna sing the "Capitalism! Innovation!" praise when some corporation sells them an overpriced-yet-sleek-looking genetic health test. (Would you like the Pancreatic Cancer Addon(TM) for 50 dollars more?)

It's also funny how people tend to bring up oligopolies and monopolies to justify their claim. Amazon, Alphabet, etc. do little else but stifle innovation by cornering the market. Capitalism does not lead to free markets, which is what supposedly foments the entrepreneurial spirit. Capitalism breeds monopolies and uninformed consumers, two things completely antithetical to free markets. Furthermore, corporations are largely aversive to funding innovation because that is risky business and has unknown return on investment [1], which is why they rely so much on the state to either do the innovation for them or subsidize them (I'd recommend looking up how much money the state gives these corporations in subsidies and/or how much in taxes the state forgives them). The main thing a corporation like Apple "innovates" on is how to convince you to buy a new cell phone every year when your current one needs no replacement (which of course also brings us to "planned obsolescence," an actual capitalist "innovation").

If you want an inkling of how innovation could of work in a socialist society, you could maybe look at Linux and how much innovation it has (same "small time" innovation of tweaking details and building upon previous versions). The community is constantly innovating, tweaking, creating different versions (Linux, Ubuntu, etc. because there're no patents or closed-sources), all this with no profit motive, the market they reach is one of actual need and desire by real people [2]. Another example you may be more familiar with is Wikipedia (which also has plenty of offshoots), it's a thriving community of freely associating individuals building something with no profit motive. These are not perfect examples of how a socialist society would function, but now imagine if everyone who wanted to contribute to such projects was free from wage slavery, debt and other basic needs, how much more innovation could there be? Same applies to the idea of the "entrepreneur." How many more people would be free to create a startup in their garage if they were free from wage slavery, debt and other basic needs that are preventing them from engaging in such a risky enterprise? How much more "innovation" would actually be produced?

As a scientist, I can tell you that our profit-motivated system also seems to be harmful to research, even when talking about academia (ie. the basically non-profit and public research sector). Science is subject to pressures that have little to do with the scientific endeavour and a lot to do with the capitalist system under which it must operate. This leads to burnouts, disillusionment, sloppy science and prioritizing goals based not on scientific merit but on profitability [3]. Furthermore, as you advance in your career you have to invest more and more time in selling your ideas to get funding. And I don't mean laying out why this or that idea deserves funding (which is only fair and the rational thing to do), I mean selling your ideas. The main thing that decides if you are getting that research grant is whether your results can be patented or if they can otherwise be sold or monetized (remember I told you corporations love to have the public sector do the actual innovation for them?).

^{PhD Comics #1624 by Jorge Cham}

Science needs freedom in order to operate effectively. Freedom from authorities and power structures that may stifle the process [4]. The enlightenment set our societies largely free from autarchic forms of state and religious power for example, which coincided with the rise of capitalism. Sadly, the economic sector was never emancipated in the same way and still operates from an obscenely totalitarian and oligarchic power structure [5]. The few who own the means of production get to dictate over the rest of us, and this has dire consequences for science, the one field I'd argue is the most essential for "innovation" (and I'm not even getting into the costs that capitalism has on the human condition or the environment).

Hopefully, I have convinced you to at least look at serious criticisms of the "Capitalism! Innovation!" canard before deciding it's true. Good luck.

^{[1] This, of course, doesn't mean there are not any examples of capitalist innovation or of angel investor junkies funding some risky idea. In the latter case we are mostly talking about venture capitalists who only pony up the cash once they smell profits in the air and who are not interested in innovation but in burning fast and selling high. See "The myth of the entrepreneur" below as it goes a little bit into this.}

^{[2] Under capitalism, CEO's are usually manufacturing needs and desires by inventing a new fad (oh, I'm sorry, you could call that an "innovation") and rely on marketing to create uninformed or misinformed consumers who make irrational decisions (thus undermining markets).}

^{[3] PhD students are probably the unsung heroes in science. They are basically the backbone of the scientific enterprise yet are severely exploited, working long hours, weekends and getting paid peanuts. All over the world, they are not even considered workers (they are students) so they don't have workers' rights, although this has thankfully been changing substantially in the last couple of decades. And once you have your PhD, if you stay in academia you'll probably have at least a decade of zero job security and low earnings. See "Ph.D. students face significant mental health challenges" and "There’s an awful cost to getting a PhD that no one talks about" below.}

^{[4] This doesn't mean science should be free from societal oversight, scientific endeavours are funded by and belong to their societies after all.}

^{[5] Even in the so-called "communist" countries economic power went from being owned by a small capitalist oligarchy to being owned by a small political oligarchy, remaining authoritarian and ultraverticalist (state capitalism).}