4 ms·

Here's the thing: You function in your environment, and you need your environment to function. And currently, some element of capitalism is required to build la

Here's the thing: You function in your environment, and you need your environment to function. And currently, some element of capitalism is required to build large-scale undertakings - if for no other reason than that the people you work with have families who'd like to eat, be housed, etc. You can fundamentally disagree with the system, but that means you opt out of all parts of it. And so they might not have been wrong about their belief system being incompatible with business/capitalism, but the idea that they could build something large without compromising was wrong. I, too, would like Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism - but you cannot get there from here by willing it to be true. (And it chafes me to say that, but that doesn't change the truth of it)

wolverine876 3y ago
Lots of successful FOSS projects have no 'elements of capitalism', depending of course on how you define the latter. Same goes for much scientific research, and many other enterprises.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you (yet at least), but can you name some of these successful FOSS projects with no elements of capitalism so I can better understand? The only ones I can think of definitely have some elements of capitalism, whether it's people using it at or for work, or contributing to it as part of a work dependency/project. But of course my limited recall is not evidence that it doesn't exist, so I'd be really interested to hear about some.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    That's the matter of definition I was talking about. It's a society with lots of capitalism, so of course you'll have people involved who are also involved in capitalism; you'll buy your computers from capitalist companies, etc. That doesn't seem meaningful. So what do you mean? I mean that projects don't need to be capitalist enterprises. For example, they can run on donations or grants, with volunteer labor, etc.
    - jeremyjh 3y ago
      I don't think it works as well for end user software. It works great for infrastructure software and libraries, because businesses contribute labor and benefit in turn from labor contributed from other businesses. But with end user software all the work is for a consumer who can't contribute much to the developers of the software. Of course there are such projects that receive enough in donations from end users to be sustained but not very many; and in the particular case of Linux desktop environments or distributions there is a lot of competition for users and donations of this type. The successful ones I can think of off the top of my head, such as Libre Office and Lichess are "killer applications" with no serious competition in FOSS.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Firefox? Signal?
- groby_b 3y ago
  Examples appreciated - and please keep in mind the "large" part. Yes, you can occasionally find a few individuals being in a fortunate enough position that they can work independent of the outside world on a small/medium project, but I'm not aware of any large projects where that is the case. I'd love to be wrong about that.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    What do you mean by 'large'? Mozilla? Linux? BSDs? Signal? ? Also, as in my other comment, it depends on how we define the involvement of capitalism. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37679386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37679386
    - groby_b 3y ago
      Moz/Linux/BSD probably qualify. None of them would be possible without some kind of corporate support. FreeBSD is probably doing the best, but even for them they need corporate donors[1] Linux absolutely is carried to a large part by companies employing people to work on Linux. Mozilla needs to find income to pay its own employees. All three are slightly different models, but all three make it fairly clear that you can't cut all ties. As for the "what do you mean" part, "obtaining money via capitalist endeavors related to the project so non-affluent devs can actually afford to work on the project" is probably a good enough definition. In comparison, Signal is small - and even it can only make it because an extremely affluent person (Brian Acton) carries them. It's not reproducible for larger projects. [1]https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-donors/donors/ https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-donors/donors/

wolverine876 3y ago

Lots of successful FOSS projects have no 'elements of capitalism', depending of course on how you define the latter. Same goes for much scientific research, and many other enterprises.

freedomben 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you (yet at least), but can you name some of these successful FOSS projects with no elements of capitalism so I can better understand? The only ones I can think of definitely have some elements of capitalism, whether it's people using it at or for work, or contributing to it as part of a work dependency/project. But of course my limited recall is not evidence that it doesn't exist, so I'd be really interested to hear about some.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That's the matter of definition I was talking about. It's a society with lots of capitalism, so of course you'll have people involved who are also involved in capitalism; you'll buy your computers from capitalist companies, etc. That doesn't seem meaningful. So what do you mean? I mean that projects don't need to be capitalist enterprises. For example, they can run on donations or grants, with volunteer labor, etc.
  - jeremyjh 3y ago
    I don't think it works as well for end user software. It works great for infrastructure software and libraries, because businesses contribute labor and benefit in turn from labor contributed from other businesses. But with end user software all the work is for a consumer who can't contribute much to the developers of the software. Of course there are such projects that receive enough in donations from end users to be sustained but not very many; and in the particular case of Linux desktop environments or distributions there is a lot of competition for users and donations of this type. The successful ones I can think of off the top of my head, such as Libre Office and Lichess are "killer applications" with no serious competition in FOSS.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Firefox? Signal?
groby_b 3y ago
Examples appreciated - and please keep in mind the "large" part. Yes, you can occasionally find a few individuals being in a fortunate enough position that they can work independent of the outside world on a small/medium project, but I'm not aware of any large projects where that is the case. I'd love to be wrong about that.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  What do you mean by 'large'? Mozilla? Linux? BSDs? Signal? ? Also, as in my other comment, it depends on how we define the involvement of capitalism. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37679386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37679386
  - groby_b 3y ago
    Moz/Linux/BSD probably qualify. None of them would be possible without some kind of corporate support. FreeBSD is probably doing the best, but even for them they need corporate donors[1] Linux absolutely is carried to a large part by companies employing people to work on Linux. Mozilla needs to find income to pay its own employees. All three are slightly different models, but all three make it fairly clear that you can't cut all ties. As for the "what do you mean" part, "obtaining money via capitalist endeavors related to the project so non-affluent devs can actually afford to work on the project" is probably a good enough definition. In comparison, Signal is small - and even it can only make it because an extremely affluent person (Brian Acton) carries them. It's not reproducible for larger projects. [1]https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-donors/donors/ https://freebsdfoundation.org/our-donors/donors/