Hmm, I suspect this discussion has a confusion between productivity (static) and innovation (dynamic). For example, an egalitarian society may have higher static productivity than comparable hierarchical ones, but may be less innovative in the long run.
Anyway, innovation isn't smoothly distributed between state capitalist institutions. Government subsidies of blue-sky research often contrast with anti-competitive tools of private firms like intellectual property and lock-in. And an R&D dept within a big company, focussing on short- and medium-term innovations, can be more innovative than product teams where individual workers focus on things like making sure a couple buttons work right in some fancy text editor. And a company at Time 1 can be more innovative than the same company at Time 2.
NYT's Markoff touches on some pressures in "Pentagon Redirects Its Research Dollars": <http://tinyurl.com/4g8mt>
And Chomsky invokes Friedrich List's metaphor of "kicking away the ladder": "First you use state power and violence to develop, then you kick away those procedures so that other people can't do it."
But there are ways growing firms attempt to align workers (at least the ones who "matter") with the owners' interests, like stock options. Giving away some of the pie to make each slice bigger, and all that...
Hahnel's _ABCs of the Political Economy_ discusses models where productive tools are rejected by management (or organized labor for that matter) because it shifts bargaining power in the wrong direction. His recommendation is using a classless society. ;)
Tayssir