5 ms·

I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. O

by jmyeet 3y ago

I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. Open source is inherently anti-capitalist. Some years ago some large company (Microsoft?) came out and called open source a huge destroyer of wealth. They're correct, in the capitalist sense. But as we (largely tech people) know: open source allows us all to net benefit, which in turns creates opportunities. Linux runs on billions of devices. This is collectivism in action. By extension, proprietary software (as noted here) makes governments beholden to private companies. I fully support Germany (and other countris) in embracing open sourrce.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. Open source is inherently anti-capitalist. Are they? Open source is inherently anti-copyright, but copyright is not inherently capitalist. Copyright is a restraint on trade enforced by the sovereign. Saying "open source is inherently anti-capitalist" looks similar to saying "smuggling is inherently anti-capitalist". The logic is not obvious.
- jmyeet 3y ago
  Smuggling is just an illegal form of commerce. I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents. But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. You might want to find a definition that allows you to converse with other people. It is generally not productive to assign your own personal meanings to words in common use. > Open source is really unrelated to IP. Why do you think open source takes the form of copyright licenses? Open source is a reaction against copyright, which puts the software back in the state you'd find it in if there were no copyright laws. It's not unrelated to IP; it is defined entirely by reference to IP law.
    - jmyeet 3y ago
      My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. The problem I find is that most people who defend capitalism don't know what it is. Most people will reach for some definition relating to markets or supply and demand. All of those things existed before capitalism and are unrelated to it. Previously we had feudalism. Monarchs ruled, typically through the divine right of kings, which was really just military might. Monarchs would have one or more levels of vassals who owned land in exchange for providing troops, food and/or resources to their feudal lord of king. At the bottom were serfs who needed to eat. Lords owned the land . In exchange for use of the land, serfs would grow food and provide food (and possibly military service) to their lords. In Marxist terms, the lords exploited the excess value of labor. By the end of the fedual era, produce was often sold and the serf owed his or her lord a payment, which was basically taxation. Capitalism is the exact same system except that instead of lords and kings we have capital owners. They fulfil the same function: exploiting and extracting the surplus value of labor. "Profit" is surplus labor value. There is no value without labor.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. This is an interesting way to lead off your statement that capitalism is the same thing as feudalism.
        throwawayqqq11 3y ago
otjrw 3y ago
[dead]
smokel 3y ago
Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. Note that the government is there mostly to keep the capitalist system running. In an anarchistic society, for example, there would probably be no government, and they would therefore not need any software. Capitalism is built around a concept of private ownership, and as such, the author of a work is reasonably free to use their work as they see fit. That allows for something like open source software to exist and not, for instance, be stolen or destroyed by others. Also, I think we are far away from collectivism, because typically only very, very, few people actually work on software, let alone open source software. Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software, and a great way to make profit, because production costs are terribly low. Not defending capitalism here, just saying that it is slightly more involved, as always.
- jmyeet 3y ago
  > Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism than anarchy. Second, there are more users of open soruce than governments. Third, even though open source projects do have licenses and we have a legal system that enforces intellectual property, we've had very few court cases related to open source licenses because it's largely unnecessary. There's really no one to sue or be sued in an economically viable fashion. There's been very few cases. And you are largely free to fork an open source project that's happenedd many times. > Also, I think we are far away from collectivism Collectivism doesn't necessitate that everyone produces value. > Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software This goes to my point that collectivism can be a net benefit. The profit motive would want to build an enclosure around something like Linux and we'd all be worse off for it, companies included. That's kind of the point.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
jowea 3y ago
Free Software as a political movement maybe is somewhat anti-capitalist, wanting useful software to be shared and companies to have less control in practice. Open Source however is like Free Software but made appealing to self-interested companies by convincing them sharing their software efforts can be mutually beneficial. It is no more anti-capitalist than having all the property owners in a capitalist society agree they are better off paying taxes and having a state to defend them from external threats instead of everyone having their private military.
xigoi 3y ago
I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.
- amatecha 3y ago
  I imagine if you give it long enough and try to uphold an expectation of "knowing/controlling what runs on your computer(s)" you will gradually gain a serious dislike of proprietary software and come to understand why people feel that capitalism and open source do not get along (and never will). The whole field of proprietary commercial software is VERY coercive. Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever. Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software. The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about). The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation! Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).
  - xigoi 3y ago
    The good thing about free markets is that you are free to choose to not use proprietary software. Unfortunately, there is some proprietary software that you have to use to function normally in the modern society. Chat apps, as you mentioned, banking apps, etc. – precisely because the markets for such software are not free. That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but with insufficient regulation. The new regulation by the EU (Digital Markets Act) will hopefully eventually sort out the situation with chat apps and inspire more regulation to address similar problems. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.
naasking 3y ago
> Open source is inherently anti-capitalist. It's mostly orthogonal to capitalism. At best, you can say that open source is against intellectual capitalism, in the form of intellectual property. This is not a position on the ownership of physical goods.
throwaway167 3y ago
It's a creator of wealth also from a capitalist perspective. When you get something for free you can spend your money on other things. It's only not a creator of wealth for merchantilist software companies that peddle something with less value.

by jmyeet 3y ago

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> I was just thinking the other day how strange it is that so many blindly defend capitalism but love open source. Those are inherently contradictory positions. Open source is inherently anti-capitalist. Are they? Open source is inherently anti-copyright, but copyright is not inherently capitalist. Copyright is a restraint on trade enforced by the sovereign. Saying "open source is inherently anti-capitalist" looks similar to saying "smuggling is inherently anti-capitalist". The logic is not obvious.

jmyeet 3y ago
Smuggling is just an illegal form of commerce. I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents. But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. You might want to find a definition that allows you to converse with other people. It is generally not productive to assign your own personal meanings to words in common use. > Open source is really unrelated to IP. Why do you think open source takes the form of copyright licenses? Open source is a reaction against copyright, which puts the software back in the state you'd find it in if there were no copyright laws. It's not unrelated to IP; it is defined entirely by reference to IP law.
  - jmyeet 3y ago
    My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. The problem I find is that most people who defend capitalism don't know what it is. Most people will reach for some definition relating to markets or supply and demand. All of those things existed before capitalism and are unrelated to it. Previously we had feudalism. Monarchs ruled, typically through the divine right of kings, which was really just military might. Monarchs would have one or more levels of vassals who owned land in exchange for providing troops, food and/or resources to their feudal lord of king. At the bottom were serfs who needed to eat. Lords owned the land . In exchange for use of the land, serfs would grow food and provide food (and possibly military service) to their lords. In Marxist terms, the lords exploited the excess value of labor. By the end of the fedual era, produce was often sold and the serf owed his or her lord a payment, which was basically taxation. Capitalism is the exact same system except that instead of lords and kings we have capital owners. They fulfil the same function: exploiting and extracting the surplus value of labor. "Profit" is surplus labor value. There is no value without labor.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. This is an interesting way to lead off your statement that capitalism is the same thing as feudalism.
      - throwawayqqq11 3y ago

otjrw 3y ago

[dead]

smokel 3y ago

Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. Note that the government is there mostly to keep the capitalist system running. In an anarchistic society, for example, there would probably be no government, and they would therefore not need any software. Capitalism is built around a concept of private ownership, and as such, the author of a work is reasonably free to use their work as they see fit. That allows for something like open source software to exist and not, for instance, be stolen or destroyed by others. Also, I think we are far away from collectivism, because typically only very, very, few people actually work on software, let alone open source software. Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software, and a great way to make profit, because production costs are terribly low. Not defending capitalism here, just saying that it is slightly more involved, as always.

jmyeet 3y ago
> Actually "open source", as we know it, can only exist in a capitalist framework. That's not true at all. For one, there are more alternatives to capitalism than anarchy. Second, there are more users of open soruce than governments. Third, even though open source projects do have licenses and we have a legal system that enforces intellectual property, we've had very few court cases related to open source licenses because it's largely unnecessary. There's really no one to sue or be sued in an economically viable fashion. There's been very few cases. And you are largely free to fork an open source project that's happenedd many times. > Also, I think we are far away from collectivism Collectivism doesn't necessitate that everyone produces value. > Finally, capitalist companies use open source software a lot. It is just a very efficient way of dealing with software This goes to my point that collectivism can be a net benefit. The profit motive would want to build an enclosure around something like Linux and we'd all be worse off for it, companies included. That's kind of the point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

jowea 3y ago

Free Software as a political movement maybe is somewhat anti-capitalist, wanting useful software to be shared and companies to have less control in practice. Open Source however is like Free Software but made appealing to self-interested companies by convincing them sharing their software efforts can be mutually beneficial. It is no more anti-capitalist than having all the property owners in a capitalist society agree they are better off paying taxes and having a state to defend them from external threats instead of everyone having their private military.

xigoi 3y ago

I don't get how you go from “you should be able to know what runs on your computer” to “we should eliminate private ownership and free trade”.

amatecha 3y ago
I imagine if you give it long enough and try to uphold an expectation of "knowing/controlling what runs on your computer(s)" you will gradually gain a serious dislike of proprietary software and come to understand why people feel that capitalism and open source do not get along (and never will). The whole field of proprietary commercial software is VERY coercive. Your ability to truly control what runs on your machine decreases every day. Want to keep being able to talk with your friends and family? Better update the respective app, even though it removed one of the key features you relied on or enjoyed. Oh hey, now another feature you really liked is subscription-only! No going back, either, once you updated you're locked into that functionality forever. Oh yeah, if you don't update automatically, you'll just constantly be harassed by manipulative dialog boxes that say never let you actually say "no", your choices are "yes I submit" or "maybe I'll give in to your demands later". All these coercive features are strictly driven by exactly one thing: profit. That is the absolute defining factor of all coercive functionality in modern software. The primary driver of open source software is providing something useful to empower people and improve their lives (even in a trivial sense like some inconsequential mini-game or utility only the author cares about). The primary driver of proprietary software is profit. Actual benefit to humans is literally secondary -- if businesses could ship software that is made with zero lines of code and provides zero benefit to anyone, but people still paid $100 for it? They'd absolutely ship that without hesitation! Really, I can talk about this dichotomy all day, because I've been recognizing this extreme contrast increasingly every day for years as I became more and more disillusioned by the increasing hostility I've experienced from the OSes and software I thought were trying to empower me but truly only care about extracting money from me (with usefulness seeming like a side effect begrudgingly fulfilled).
- xigoi 3y ago
  The good thing about free markets is that you are free to choose to not use proprietary software. Unfortunately, there is some proprietary software that you have to use to function normally in the modern society. Chat apps, as you mentioned, banking apps, etc. – precisely because the markets for such software are not free. That's not a problem with capitalism itself, but with insufficient regulation. The new regulation by the EU (Digital Markets Act) will hopefully eventually sort out the situation with chat apps and inspire more regulation to address similar problems. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a communist government requiring people to use certain proprietary software.

naasking 3y ago

> Open source is inherently anti-capitalist. It's mostly orthogonal to capitalism. At best, you can say that open source is against intellectual capitalism, in the form of intellectual property. This is not a position on the ownership of physical goods.

throwaway167 3y ago

It's a creator of wealth also from a capitalist perspective. When you get something for free you can spend your money on other things. It's only not a creator of wealth for merchantilist software companies that peddle something with less value.