4 ms·
This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it's worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it's not without downsides.
by sillysaurus3 9y ago
This is one argument against capitalism as a whole, and it's worth taking seriously. Capitalism is still the best tool we have, but it's not without downsides.
Example: open source is the communist model, and it works very well. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. No one owns anything, and you're free to fork or vote with your feet.
Ditto for illegal drug markets. If you're unhappy as a merchant, you have a number of options. No one owns you. You can switch to a different market, or start your own (if you're suicidally ambitious).
The interesting part is that the drug markets end up combining the best of both capitalism and communism in that sense.
But only in that sense. Obviously, unregulated drugs are risky. Yet even without regulations, it's remarkable how rare it is to hear about unhappy customers.
- auggierose 9y agoUnhappy = Dead might be an explanation for that.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIn places with an established drug scene I'd expect that unhappy customer == dead dealer, because other parties will work to protect their commons (reputation of the market) against random defectors looking for quick buck.
- rubicon33 9y agoReally? It's remarkable that we don't hear regularly how dissatisfied people are with their drug dealer? Think about that for just a second...
- criloz2 9y agoI don't see how open source is a communist model, nobody is coerced to publish their code, they do because they want to, even several companies are making some of their source code public for improving the trust that their client has in their product and increase their sales.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt's not capitalism either, because open source developers don't sell code, or write code under pressure of earning a living. They just write it and give it away. Not sure what the right word is, but textbook-definition communism fits - open-source code isn't really owned in practical sense.
- dukeflukem 9y agoMy understanding is you have an automatic copyright on the code you create. When you share you can optionally grant a license BSD etc. to let people use that code subject to X. So the code subject is owned.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThat's an implementation detail, not the way people in Open Source think of it day-to-day.
- dukeflukem 9y agoI'm not sure how copyright and licensing is an implementation detail. Its fairly important to consider.
- rosser 9y ago"Communism" — the leading capital due to its being the first word in the sentence — is an economic model. "Communism", the Soviet-style phenomenon is not "communism", either in principle, or in practice. Yet we insist on conflating them, and argue against the one whenever the other is mentioned, as if it's synonymous with both.
- nugi 9y agoThe problem with both is the same. The benefits are only derived if everyone follows the system, but human nature dictates that will not be the case. The problem is with the nature of what is voluntary. Most homeowners in a non communist country, presumably don't want to leave their home, or join a commune. When you determine everyone MUST participate, the distinction you make evaporates.