3 ms·

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst system except for all the others. Open source doesn't represent socialism, which has a history of mass deaths

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst system except for all the others. Open source doesn't represent socialism, which has a history of mass deaths and economic and literal starvation. Open source just says, "I wrote this code and you can use it without paying me." To make an economy work, though, people have to pay for stuff -- which means they have to earn money. Open source projects, including all the big ones, are funded by profit-making, capitalist businesses. Whether it's being propped up by Adobe (like the awesome Blender) or Microsoft (with VS Code), you have to make money to be able to give it away like that. Even personal open source projects are funded by that person's money, probably from a job.

azemetre 2y ago
Churchill never said this about capitalism, he said it about democracy.
- avaldez_ 2y ago
  That's what paraphrasing means.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Not really, you have to paraphrase what was actually said not completely distort the original meaning to push your narrative.
    - dtagames 2y ago
      My intent here is not to distort the meaning but rather to apply it, fully intact, to the concept of capitalism.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    To paraphrase Churchill, the HN commenting system is the worst system except for all the others. To paraphrase Churchill, pineapple pizza is the worst pizza except for all the others. To paraphrase Churchill, Japan is the worst country except for all the others.
troymc 2y ago
Churchill's famous quote wasn't about capitalism, it was about democracy, which isn't the same thing at all. Here's an article with his full quote and the history of the idea he was expressing: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/12/08/democracy-worst/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/12/08/democracy-worst/
- dtagames 2y ago
  I'm fully aware of that, hence calling it a paraphrase. Perhaps I should have used the term allusion.
eesmith 2y ago
I know how simple it is to say "socialism = mass death", but it's not meaningful. Was Roosevelt a socialist? Certainly some at the time said he was a socialist or even a communist. Or as VP candidate Walz said: "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness." Walz's comment is surely aligned with what the OP meant as socialism. "Capitalism" doesn't simply mean "pay for stuff", because people used money and worked on personal and shared projects long before there was capitalism. And it's not like capitalism doesn't have its own history of mass deaths and economic and literal starvation.
- dtagames 2y ago
  This is also not correct. No form of socialism has worked and therefore, empirically, it does not work. Capitalism, however, has raised the standard of living for more people across more socioeconomic classes in more places than any other idea in human history, and that's provable on any measure of the quality of human life.
  - tocs3 2y ago
    I have a post above somewhere above but CO-OPS. I agree that capitalism has worked wonders but it is not the only route to success.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    > This is also not correct. No form of socialism has worked ... The problem is in how one draws the line to define "socialism". I mentioned how Roosevelt was called a socialist and communist due to his New Deal. Was that socialism, or was it not socialism? I highlighted how "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness." That's why "socialism" as a blanket term is pretty meaningless. If you can't define socialism, you can't tell if it worked. If your definition excludes examples which others have said is socialism, and which seem to work, which definition should we trust, and why? > Capitalism, however, has raised the standard of living How do you prove that? How do you disentangle correlation and causation? (As an aside, 'standard of living' is usually measured in economic terms, often coupled with growth, so choosing that definition is not unbiased.) Can we attribute the upcoming climate catastrophe to capitalism? If 500 million people die from it, can we say that capitalism caused mass deaths and economic and literal starvation?

azemetre 2y ago

Churchill never said this about capitalism, he said it about democracy.

avaldez_ 2y ago
That's what paraphrasing means.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Not really, you have to paraphrase what was actually said not completely distort the original meaning to push your narrative.
  - dtagames 2y ago
    My intent here is not to distort the meaning but rather to apply it, fully intact, to the concept of capitalism.
- eesmith 2y ago
  To paraphrase Churchill, the HN commenting system is the worst system except for all the others. To paraphrase Churchill, pineapple pizza is the worst pizza except for all the others. To paraphrase Churchill, Japan is the worst country except for all the others.

troymc 2y ago

Churchill's famous quote wasn't about capitalism, it was about democracy, which isn't the same thing at all. Here's an article with his full quote and the history of the idea he was expressing: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/12/08/democracy-worst/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2023/12/08/democracy-worst/

dtagames 2y ago
I'm fully aware of that, hence calling it a paraphrase. Perhaps I should have used the term allusion.

eesmith 2y ago

I know how simple it is to say "socialism = mass death", but it's not meaningful. Was Roosevelt a socialist? Certainly some at the time said he was a socialist or even a communist. Or as VP candidate Walz said: "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness." Walz's comment is surely aligned with what the OP meant as socialism. "Capitalism" doesn't simply mean "pay for stuff", because people used money and worked on personal and shared projects long before there was capitalism. And it's not like capitalism doesn't have its own history of mass deaths and economic and literal starvation.

dtagames 2y ago
This is also not correct. No form of socialism has worked and therefore, empirically, it does not work. Capitalism, however, has raised the standard of living for more people across more socioeconomic classes in more places than any other idea in human history, and that's provable on any measure of the quality of human life.
- tocs3 2y ago
  I have a post above somewhere above but CO-OPS. I agree that capitalism has worked wonders but it is not the only route to success.
- eesmith 2y ago
  > This is also not correct. No form of socialism has worked ... The problem is in how one draws the line to define "socialism". I mentioned how Roosevelt was called a socialist and communist due to his New Deal. Was that socialism, or was it not socialism? I highlighted how "One person's socialism is another person's neighborliness." That's why "socialism" as a blanket term is pretty meaningless. If you can't define socialism, you can't tell if it worked. If your definition excludes examples which others have said is socialism, and which seem to work, which definition should we trust, and why? > Capitalism, however, has raised the standard of living How do you prove that? How do you disentangle correlation and causation? (As an aside, 'standard of living' is usually measured in economic terms, often coupled with growth, so choosing that definition is not unbiased.) Can we attribute the upcoming climate catastrophe to capitalism? If 500 million people die from it, can we say that capitalism caused mass deaths and economic and literal starvation?