Re-production of that same product? Or expanded reproduction of the whole means of life of the species? Your reference to R&D would seem to indicate the latter. But given that we are talking about a phase in history in which 'bourgeois right' is still in operation (see Gotha Critique), what is the incentive for the individual to take on that role of expanded reproduction through research into methods of boosting productivity, etc.? Under capitalism the incentive is competition and the related possibility of increased remuneration for the individual. I don't see any incentive in the system you describe. If you then say that there 'shouldn't have to be' an incentive, then you are not talking about bourgeois right at all; you're in fact talking about communism. But if this is communism, then why should we include any concession to bourgeois right, such as reward for labour? The main question here, underlying these paradoxes, is: What drives productivity in the lower stage of communism? A secondary question (of which there many): If you are going to include measurement of SNLT how do you measure the inputs that are going to lead to productivity gains in the future? Surely not just by the amount of time that the scientist spent in her lab? Surely that is not how you are going to measure the contribution that someone made to productivity? If this were it, you would have neither a viable system of bourgeois right nor anything resembling communism. It would simply be a totally under-conceptualised flop.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now. www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail