No i have a realistic definition of progress in capitalism. You must have a rather narrow brain and are unable to comprehend the difference between a realistic and practical application of "progress" versus an ideal that is unrealistic.
Bell labs, Xerox PARC are done. These labs existed because capitalist businesses were successful in their profitable endeavors AND could AFFORD side quests that were unprofitable. In the end these places were shuttered because they were unprofitable.
Now take a look at academia. Where does all that money come from? Taxes. Where do Taxes come from? Business and profit. Academic progress comes from business.
In fact all progress comes from business and profit. That's the general actuality. Of course there are exceptions, but that's just pedantism.
Where does the common education system and legal system system underpins the business world come from? Government. Who puts dollar bills into the hands of people and tells them "come next tax season, we're going to ask you for a bunch of dollars at gunpoint, which will make them valuable, so you better have some", which creates the demand for dollars which stimulates the economy? Government.
"Business and profit" are not possible without government, which will do stuff like "fund research into the internet so we don't lose the Cold War if the Russians nuke us", which leads to Google and Meta having great "business and profit", "spend billions on aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans to make sure that shipment of shoes Nike spend 3 dollars per pair to make in Cambodia gets to California where it will be resold for 100 dollars a pair", and "fund a school system and research institutions to ensure a steady stream of educated workers to build the miracle of modern capitalism".
So if you believe all progress comes from business and profit, you believe all progress comes from the government, because business and profit is a side effect of governement.
I encourage you to read Debt and Dawn of Everything by Graeber for more information on this subject :)
Your logic is truly out of this world. Just because government is involved with progress DOES not mean it's the origin of all progress. Everything you listed is government aiding and facilitating in progress. Nothing of what you said necessarily means the government is a requirement for progress.
You remember that the american economy existed BEFORE money was minted by the government right? You read history right? So how the heck does your argument fit in the world of common sense? Like your incredible logic is Government makes money, therefore government is responsible for progress.
You realize that "money" aka gold, aka other forms of currency have existed without governments right?
I don't need to read a book to know about the anthropological origins of debt or money. Like clearly either you're an idiot, or you're just treating me like one coming up with completely misguided logic to point out what? To read some book? Please.
er... you mean when it was using money minted by the English/British government?
> You realize that "money" aka gold, aka other forms of currency have existed without governments right?
The use of precious metals as currency happened after the creation of debt-based paper money, and was tightly linked to what you'd at least call proto-governmental bureaucratic institutions - the temples of Sumerian cities would decree that one talent of silver was worth a bushel of barley (so roughly a day's wages), and people would do accounting using the silver talent as a unit of value, but that only worked because there was a large temple, with plentiful talent reserves, to act a a starting point for stuff like "laborer A promises laborer B half a talent tomorrow if laborer B gives laborer A a hand on task X today", or "farmer 1 gives farmer 2 one talent's worth of barley today, with a promise that a year from now, farmer 2 will give the holder of this promissory note two talent's worth of barley or silver".
So... my suggestion that perhaps you may be drawing your conclusions based on imperfect understandings of history may not be completely out there.
> Like clearly either you're an idiot,
yeah you got me, I'm an idiot :D
> you're just treating me like one coming up with completely misguided logic to point out what? To read some book?
I apologize if you feel like I'm condescending. That's not my intention, I'm just pointing out you seem to be repeating a falsehood, albeit one that is very popular in American political discourse, that money/business/commerce can somehow happen without government.
Like this Reagan-era meme is patently false, maybe in the fucking 80s no one had internet to verify that it was false, but in 2025 I think people should realize it was bullshit made up by the neocons to cut social services, and has about as much bearing on the truth as the whole "God made earth exactly as it is 6000 years ago" myth that creationists say is just as true as the geological theories which help us find oil.
Like with all due respect, you're saying "money happens without government", I'm saying "bro, Graeber has a several thousand page book explaining exactly why that's bullshit". I do feel justified.
Funny you should say that: business and profit are actually way undertaxed in the US, compared to (for instance) salaries and pensions. But, you're still talking about the on-paper accounting (and choosing an arbitrary point in a cyclic economy as the "original source", but let's ignore that for now).
Let's consider how progress actually occurs, on the ground. People learn how things work, whether through study, experience, original thought, or (more often) a mix of the three. They then attempt to find improvements: new methods, new machines, new buildings. They then verify these improvements, through experiment, theory, or a mix of the three. We call this "innovation". They then put these into practice: building, manufacturing, distributing, teaching, or performing; which improves the efficiency of some resource manipulation activity, or enables people to accomplish or experience things they couldn't otherwise. We call this "progress".
Individuals cannot efficiently acquire all resources (respectively: accomplish all tasks, experience all experiences, etc) alone. Specialised tools and skillsets allow certain people to accomplish certain tasks more efficiently than others: we call this "expertise" and "economies of scale" and "virtuoso", among other names. Working together, people can accomplish more than they can apart: we call this "collaboration" when it is direct, and "trade" when it is indirect. To make trade (locally) more efficient in large groups, we abstract large trade networks by valuing more-or-less everything along one axis, which we call "currency", or "money". Money represents resources, because it can be exchanged for goods and services. (Therefore, money is fungible.) Money also represents debt, for much the same reason. (Therefore, money is not fungible.) What money represents depends quite a lot on your metaphysics, because it is an abstract concept.
A trade where each party to the trade receives more value than they spend (according to the "money's worth" metric) is considered a "profitable trade": the "more value" is called the "profit", and trades can be profitable for all parties despite a variety of different choices of profit allocation. (Various factors constrain profit allocation in practice; we will not discuss them here.) Some trades are mediated by intermediaries (traders, employers), who take some portion of the profit: in some cases, these intermediaries are providing value (e.g. by transporting goods, or organising a team); but in other cases, they are not. One example of an intermediary that does not provide any value is a corporate person qua employer: by virtue of not actually existing, a corporation cannot by any clever argument be said to actually contribute to boots-on-the-ground labour activity.
So we see that profit is, except on the balance sheets of a sole trader / worker-owned coöp, actually the removal of resources from the people doing the actual work, making the actual progress. If the removed resources are pooled and used for R&D – as in the cases you describe as "side quests" – and we further propose that this R&D would not have been performed by those the resources were removed from, we can say that profit contributes towards progress. (Certain investment schemes provide another example.) However, in many cases, profit goes towards things like "build us a moat to keep the competitors out!" or "bribe the regulators" or "outspend our competitors' advertising budget" or "buy the C-suite even bigger yachts": we cannot say this contributes towards progress, unless we define the ultimate end of human progress narrowly: in the field of yacht manufacturing, or perhaps the field of cheating at sports.
Business, likewise, is sometimes related to progress, but sometimes unrelated to it, and in any case not in any way essential to progress (except in the field of business studies). Saying the word "actuality" doesn't make what you say true.
I notice you didn't address the example of Wikipedia.
And all of this is primarily driven by business and desire for profit. It's less driven by charity or just hobbyiest interest. That is IN actuality how it occurs.
>Individuals cannot efficiently acquire all resources (respectively: accomplish all tasks, experience all experiences, etc) alone. Specialised tools and skillsets allow certain people to accomplish certain tasks more efficiently than others: we call this "expertise" and "economies of scale" and "virtuoso", among other names. Working together, people can accomplish more than they can apart: we call this "collaboration" when it is direct, and "trade" when it is indirect. To make trade (locally) more efficient in large groups, we abstract large trade networks by valuing more-or-less everything along one axis, which we call "currency", or "money". Money represents resources, because it can be exchanged for goods and services. (Therefore, money is fungible.) Money also represents debt, for much the same reason. (Therefore, money is not fungible.) What money represents depends quite a lot on your metaphysics, because it is an abstract concept.
This is just pedantism. At the basic level money represents status and power. It is a materialistic concept at it's core. While there are other ways to look at it primarily what I'm saying is that status and power is what drives people more than anything else. You can get into the bs hand wavy metaphysics of it, sure, any ass hole can do that. We're talking about the core common sense colloquilal nature of what it means to do it for money rather then altruism. OF course altruism can involve money too right? But it would be a rather deceptive move to shift the conversation in that direction to make things even more muddled.
Tired of your pedantic bs. You know what I mean I know what you mean and you're just trying to defend yourself. Why can't people be rational and just admit their wrong. You're wrong. EOS.
When construction is driven by a desire for profit, you get shoddy buildings that, if you're unlucky, kill people. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse – the latter is twice relevant, since the response also challenges your thesis. When buildings are built well, it's because they're built by people who care about their work. Cutting corners (a directly profitable activity, in many situations – and repeatedly profitable, if you play your cards right) is not what I call "progress".
I'm not certain you know what profit is. What do you mean, when you use that word?
> what I'm saying is that status and power is what drives people more than anything else.
Thank you for stating your thesis so clearly. While these things are a major driver of war, they are not a significant driver of human progress.
> the core common sense colloquilal nature of
I've noticed a lot of unjustified assertions from you, which are presumably also appeals to "common sense". How does your "common sense" explain Wikipedia?
