NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the the increasing use of Open Source and free software (like Firefox) a sign capitalism has had its day?

What about the huge use of peer-to-peer software to gain access to media files for free?

:confused:

:confused:

I have been thinking about how Open Source software goes against the fundamental assumptions of capitalism - that money is the reward and only those who make a profit can prosper

Is the the increasing use of Open Source and free software (like Firefox) a sign capitalism has had its day?

What about the huge use of peer-to-peer software to gain access to media files for free?


I think the soaring oil prices might be more of a sign of troubled capitalism than that.

...

Dude.

Free stuff only means that those products are going to be more rarely produced, because nobody can make a living off of free stuff.

Is somone going to build your house for free?

Seriously. Open Source is great, but it's only interrupting a few markets and making them less profitable. Like what the internet does to other entertainment industries.

...

Dude.

Free stuff only means that those products are going to be more rarely produced, because nobody can make a living off of free stuff.

Is somone going to build your house for free?

Seriously. Open Source is great, but it's only interrupting a few markets and making them less profitable. Like what the internet does to other entertainment industries.


That's my point. Why is the Open Source movement growing if people only make things for money?

The same reason graffiti exists.

That's my point. Why is the Open Source movement growing if people only make things for money?
Cos even in capitalism people do not make things only for money.

And Open Source can help you in money making.

It's called 'pro-bono' or somesuch.

There's a game called Planeshift being developed right now, for instance. Forever free, 100%. It's basically an Everquest kind of thing. Fun for something still being shoved together.

But the people will get their names out there.

Cos even in capitalism people do not make things only for money.

And Open Source can help you in money making.


But only a tiny minority of people who work on Open Source projects do so for money.

There is a collectivist mentallity in the Open Source movement which is alien to the capitalist idea that people should be paid for things they do.

I would agree with a different wording of no. 1.

Capitalism is changing. It will not collapse but evolve. Ideals like open source, slow economics, etc, will not destroy it, but change it into something sustainable.

The acquisition (sp?) of wealth is only the means to an end...not the ultimate goal. As some are beginning to understand.

And people have been doing charities before capitalism.

Still plenty of capitalism.

And people have been doing charities before capitalism.

Still plenty of capitalism.


Open Source is not charity. It works on the grounds that you contribute what you can, and in exchange get access to what everyone else has done. It's almost communist.

Wow, internet nerds beliveing the hold the key to the future economic system of the west...

It's almost communist.

Wíth the small difference that the enourmous failure you call communism, has killed some 96 million people since the beginning of the Russian revolution, has dealt an unrepairable blow the enviroment (especially in the caucaus region) destroyed millions of families, and once held almost half the world under its oppression.

Open Source is not charity. It works on the grounds that you contribute what you can, and in exchange get access to what everyone else has done. It's almost communist.

It's called networking.

And the products given by open source are, in fact, charities. Planeshift's group is even a legal non-profit organization now.

Open source is just one example of an industry that works from enthusiasts and donations. It's not relevant to the end of capitalism as a whole.

I am hoping for a change in capitalism in the future to make it sustainable. Industries should be responsible for the product for it's entire lifetime, rather than just for the cost of manufacturing it. This could be done via a tax on packaging the product, materials used, production methods(pollution) and on the expected lifetime of the product (quality).

So unwrapped organic veg would have no tax, frozen veg in bags say would have a penny tax. A washing machine designed to be obsolete in 5 years (as they are these days) would be highly taxed. A washing machine with a lifetime guarantee would have a lot less tax.

The tax would go towards recycling and improving the environment, which could include cleaning up water and promoting organic produce.

There was a thing on Channel 4 last week advocating this idea.

Better us than GWB.

Capitalsm is, at it's heart a self-destructive system, eventually interest and inflation will go out of control and the system collapses, look what happened in the late 20s.

The point of communism is that it eliminates the whle stupid system of the 'economy' (which is ultimately just a way of getting bragging rights).

Wow, internet nerds beliveing the hold the key to the future economic system of the west...



Wíth the small difference that the enourmous failure you call communism, has killed some 96 million people since the beginning of the Russian revolution, has dealt an unrepairable blow the enviroment (especially in the caucaus region) destroyed millions of families, and once held almost half the world under its oppression.

I am sure you are well aware of the differences between Stalinist-communism and the other varieties that exist. I am not specifically advocating communism as a system of government, but the way Open Source works is much more like communism than capitalism.

<<Wíth the small difference that the enourmous failure you call communism, has killed some 96 million people since the beginning of the Russian revolution, has dealt an unrepairable blow the enviroment (especially in the caucaus region) destroyed millions of families, and once held almost half the world under its oppression.>>

Jesus Hector Christ people. There is a difference between Communism and evil half-socialist dictatorship.

Someone has chosen 'What the hell is Open Source...' so I will post a couple of links

Open Source - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

The Firefox web browser - http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

But only a tiny minority of people who work on Open Source projects do so for money.

There is a collectivist mentallity in the Open Source movement which is alien to the capitalist idea that people should be paid for things they do.
And as I stated, even in Capitalism people do things for other reasons than just money. Call it a hobby and you've solved your problem. Or is walking your dog against capitalist ideas too?

Dogs crap and people don't clear it up.

Open source helps everyone (bar those maggots at Microsoft).

<<Wíth the small difference that the enourmous failure you call communism, has killed some 96 million people since the beginning of the Russian revolution, has dealt an unrepairable blow the enviroment (especially in the caucaus region) destroyed millions of families, and once held almost half the world under its oppression.>>

Jesus Hector Christ people. There is a difference between Communism and evil half-socialist dictatorship.
Thankyou.

Pretty much any 'communist' country that has existed has been at best a semi-socialist whacky democracy and at worst an autocratic semi-socialist garbage. Not cool.
Capitalism in it's current form is unsustainable and in order to continue to be stable it will have to change quite alot or it will implode, just like with the Great Depression, and we all know how bad that was.

Dogs crap and people don't clear it up.

Open source helps everyone (bar those maggots at Microsoft).

You honestly think MS doesn't steal ideas from OS?

I would agree with a different wording of no. 1.

Capitalism is changing. It will not collapse but evolve. Ideals like open source, slow economics, etc, will not destroy it, but change it into something sustainable.

The acquisition (sp?) of wealth is only the means to an end...not the ultimate goal. As some are beginning to understand.

Said it perfectly

I have here a basic introduction to communism, do you think it'd be a good one to make a new topc with?

I have here a basic introduction to communism, do you think it'd be a good one to make a new topc with?

Dunno can we see it?

Capitalism is here to stay, but together with open source. There's actually a lot of money in open source, but rather than selling the software product you charge for support or for your time coding an open source application for someone who needs it.

Dogs crap and people don't clear it up.

Open source helps everyone (bar those maggots at Microsoft).
True. And as you stated, OS helps the developers too. They do benefit from it.

What do you think? Would anyone develop it if it wouldn't be benificial to them?

Newton never benifited from Calculus or the thee laws beyond a relatively modest professorship and a certain amount of prestige. (explains why he spent so long trying to transmute lead)

Wow, internet nerds beliveing the hold the key to the future economic system of the west...
Wíth the small difference that the enourmous failure you call communism, has killed some 96 million people since the beginning of the Russian revolution, has dealt an unrepairable blow the enviroment (especially in the caucaus region) destroyed millions of families, and once held almost half the world under its oppression.

When will you closet fascist realise that the Russian revolution was lost? There was never a communist Russia. Stalin took power and the vast majority of communists in Russia were put in Gulags. Comrades Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kirov, Orzhnokidze, all of the real leaders of the revolution were killed by the Stalinists. Stalinism isstate capitalism. Stalin was a Great Russian Bully, as Lenin said, a national socialist (ie- fascistic), a nationalist, a racist. All of these are contradictory to communism. every 'socialist' revolution since then, with the exception of the Cuban revolution, have been taken over by the Stalinoids who have then twisted them into dictatorships, this is the case in China, Albania, East Germany, Vietnam, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Benin and so on. There has not yet been a successful people's revolution, one which has truely liberated the people. The Cuban revolution is begginning to evolve into a true socialist nation, now that the USSR is gona, and is helping Venezuela.


...and yes, capitalism is doomed. It relies on oil. Oil will run out soon, and the capitalists haven't put enough cash into research and development of alternative energy. End of oil means end of vast amounts of capitalist economy--- for example, how will suburban workers get to their jobs when petrol costs $5 a litre? I'm in Australia, it'll probably cost more in America. Capitalism will change and I believe that people will become highly aware of their lack of rights and will demand democracy, thus hearlding the end of market capitalism.

And yet Castro has been ranked by Human Rights Watch as one of the most brutal dictators of the modern era and Cuba has the highest rate of political imprisonment of any country; not to mention the constant stream of refugees to Florida. People depend on oil, not any specific economic system. China is the country facing the biggest oil problem right now, and while it's liberalized, it's far from a market economy.

As for lack of rights, it's fairly apparent that economic freedom and personal freedom go hand in hand. Even in 'socialist' countries like Europe, the basic structure of the economy is one of free-market capitalism, just heavily tempered by a welfare system. Countries that have structurally changed away from the market system end up as repressive dictatorships ninety-nine times out of a hundred, for the simple reason that a precedent is established that rights and individual freedom can be violated to satisfy government goals. A free economy doesn't guarantee civil liberties, but an unfree economy is a guarantee that you won't have civil liberties.

...and yes, capitalism is doomed. It relies on oil. Oil will run out soon, and the capitalists haven't put enough cash into research and development of alternative energy. End of oil means end of vast amounts of capitalist economy--- for example, how will suburban workers get to their jobs when petrol costs $5 a litre? I'm in Australia, it'll probably cost more in America. Capitalism will change and I believe that people will become highly aware of their lack of rights and will demand democracy, thus hearlding the end of market capitalism.
oil? Who needs oil anymore? well of course companies want to use it til it's all gone but alternative methods have been developed ages ago. Oil is still cheaper but when the price gets too high, alternatives are waiting. And of course most of the new techlogy is owned by traditional oil companies. They are not going to disappear just like that.

How suburban workers get to their jobs when they didn't own cars? How I get to work (or school) everyday? Bicycle, my legs, public transportation, pony, rollerskates...

And yet Castro has been ranked by Human Rights Watch as one of the most brutal dictators of the modern era and Cuba has the highest rate of political imprisonment of any country; not to mention the constant stream of refugees to Florida. People depend on oil, not any specific economic system. China is the country facing the biggest oil problem right now, and while it's liberalized, it's far from a market economy.

As for lack of rights, it's fairly apparent that economic freedom and personal freedom go hand in hand. Even in 'socialist' countries like Europe, the basic structure of the economy is one of free-market capitalism, just heavily tempered by a welfare system. Countries that have structurally changed away from the market system end up as repressive dictatorships ninety-nine times out of a hundred, for the simple reason that a precedent is established that rights and individual freedom can be violated to satisfy government goals. A free economy doesn't guarantee civil liberties, but an unfree economy is a guarantee that you won't have civil liberties.


Europe isn't a country, you ignorant fool.

Europe isn't a country, you ignorant fool.
oh yeeeesh, it's a country, next to the continent of soviet union. :D

NS is the place to learn your geography

>>As for lack of rights, it's fairly apparent that economic freedom and personal freedom go hand in hand. Even in 'socialist' countries like Europe, the basic structure of the economy is one of free-market capitalism, just heavily tempered by a welfare system.>>

Patriot Act.

Terror Bill (shortly to be an act).

Hardly great endorsements of personal freedom. Also, particularly the US, only rich people get into power. More a case of economic power=personal freedom.

How much economic freedom does the average person have anyway? When I leave school I will have 2 options. Get a job, or go on benefits. Neither way am I likely to get rich, yet I'm smart and hardworking. Imbeciles like GWB are millionaires and I doubt that I will earn in my lifetime the amount they 'earn' in a couple of years. It's aristocracy all over again, they are just more subtle about it.

When will you closet fascist realise that the Russian revolution was lost? There was never a communist Russia. Stalin took power and the vast majority of communists in Russia were put in Gulags. Comrades Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kirov, Orzhnokidze, all of the real leaders of the revolution were killed by the Stalinists. Stalinism isstate capitalism. Stalin was a Great Russian Bully, as Lenin said, a national socialist (ie- fascistic), a nationalist, a racist. All of these are contradictory to communism. every 'socialist' revolution since then, with the exception of the Cuban revolution, have been taken over by the Stalinoids who have then twisted them into dictatorships, this is the case in China, Albania, East Germany, Vietnam, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Benin and so on. There has not yet been a successful people's revolution, one which has truely liberated the people. The Cuban revolution is begginning to evolve into a true socialist nation, now that the USSR is gona, and is helping Venezuela.


...and yes, capitalism is doomed. It relies on oil. Oil will run out soon, and the capitalists haven't put enough cash into research and development of alternative energy. End of oil means end of vast amounts of capitalist economy--- for example, how will suburban workers get to their jobs when petrol costs $5 a litre? I'm in Australia, it'll probably cost more in America. Capitalism will change and I believe that people will become highly aware of their lack of rights and will demand democracy, thus hearlding the end of market capitalism.


Gas in America is alot less then $5AUS per litre. ;)

Cuba is still a long way from true socialism, let alone true communism. They should copy the Amish method, if they want to be communist. And then just throw away the religious and anti-technological bias.

<<Gas in America is alot less then $5AUS per litre. >>

SOBs complaining at $2 per gallon. Suck it up, the UK pays 3 times that.

I hope it's on it's way out anyway.

...

Dude.

Free stuff only means that those products are going to be more rarely produced, because nobody can make a living off of free stuff.

Is somone going to build your house for free?

Seriously. Open Source is great, but it's only interrupting a few markets and making them less profitable. Like what the internet does to other entertainment industries.

Yeah, no one realized all these open source developers are working elsewhere... Linus Torvalds, for example, works for Transmeta (so much for open source)...

"Open Source" is by no means an indication of the colapse of "Capitalism"... You're talking about a specific "manufacturing" concept invented for the production of software... And has never been tested, or even could be practically implimented outside of software design.

You may have "Open source" software, but all of it is still run on computers/components/silicon manufactured by large corporations (capitalism); so it is nowhere near the "massive capitalist enemy" that the Anarchists(tm) want to make it out to be...

Is the the increasing use of Open Source and free software (like Firefox) a sign capitalism has had its day?

What about the huge use of peer-to-peer software to gain access to media files for free?

Firefox only has about 5% of the browser market, and software is the only market where open source is relevant so...

Is the the increasing use of Open Source and free software (like Firefox) a sign capitalism has had its day?




Never, Capitalism is the only way that will work. Yes its not ideal but its better than anything else at the moment.
Sharing a bit of software doesn't indicate the fall of capitalism..theres a signifcant difference to offering free computer updates to free money

But Mozilla tends to produce far better stuff than Microsoft and all the othr browser creators.

The problem with your idea is scope. Open Source is, plain and simple, irrelevant to the 'big picture' as things stand. I use Firefox, it's actually a damn good browser all things considered but the problem with your idea is that I'm using Firefox on a computer I paid for, as a operating system to utilize other software that I also paid for, bought with money I worked for. Sorry mate, but Capitalism isn't going to "collapse" until we have "Open Source" poultry, "Open Source" toilet paper, "Open Source" furniture, "Open Source" clothing, "Open Source" vehicles, "Open Source" electronics, etc, etc, etc... If someone wants to devote himself to the production of tangible necessities like toilet paper and distribute it to anyone that needs it free of charge then more power to him, however he is not going to be responsible for the downfall of Capitalism. Also, assuming that his mind isn't lost to some mind altering drug he will do the smart thing and market his product locally at a reduced price until no one wants to buy the big name product. He will make more and more money, widening the scope of his distribution, employing people to help him, and otherwise expanding his business until he is as big as the people he out did to begin with.

Next we have oil, and every liberal’s wet dream, it running out. The problem? There are hardly any "oil companies" anymore, these days we have "energy companies." The fact is that the largest contributors to the alternate energy movement are the evil, satanic oil companies. Capitalism is, was, and always will be the most flexible and adaptive economic model. Its very nature is that of technological evolution, progress embodied, and distributed for the benefit of both the consumer and the corporation. You didn't see coal barons holding back oil did you? No, the coal barons where pushed aside for a new wave of advancement. The same will happen to oil, and the same for whatever comes next. The smart ones will feel the winds of change and ride the bandwagon, the ones that don't will be left in the dust of time with the blacksmiths and bowyers.


All that aside, I have been working on a theory lately concerning the course of Capitalism. The basic idea of Capitalism is to get the maximum output from minimum input. The Cotton Gin for instance allowed far fewer people to produce far more cotton in far less time, thus allowing more to be sold for less to a wider market. This basic model dates back to the first tools man employed to make basic tasks of survival easier and more efficient and it has evolved ever since. At times this slow and steady evolution can be seen taking giant leaps forward (Industrial Revolution anyone?) and we may very well be on the verge of one in the near future.

Now, more to the point. Concerning the aforementioned process of getting the maximum output from minimum input. What happens when you no longer have to put anything in and the output is better then ever? I'm talking about automation here, a process already widely used and already replacing manufacturing laborers on a large scale. Given the opportunity to fire say 1000 workers and use the money saved to invest in a system of machines that does better work and costs less to maintain (interestingly enough, maintenance could be done by a machine as well,) the Capitalist will fire the workers 10 out of 10 times. In the next couple of decades this may be a reality. So, what happens when companies have mass unemployment, the people have no money to buy products, and the products are literally pumping themselves out endlessly? Furthermore, this would basically cripple taxes so the Government would be suffering as well. You could implement welfare, take money from the corporations and give it to the people (so the people could give it back to the corporations?) It would be like putting a Band-Aid on an amputated limb.

What then are your options? You have everything you could possibly want sitting around being amassing, what then would happen? One possible salutation is Communism born from the ashes of Capitalism, the abolition of money, the free distribution of goods, the subsequent deterioration of Government bureaucracy, etc, etc, giving way to a stateless, classless, society where you can have ANYTHING you want at no cost? Earlier in the thread someone said that "The acquisition of wealth is only the means to an end...not the ultimate goal." Is THIS the ultimate goal?

I have been thinking about how Open Source software goes against the fundamental assumptions of capitalism - that money is the reward and only those who make a profit can prosper
Firefox, for example does make money, not through direct charges, but through subtle advertisements, donations, (other) product sales and the like.

http://www.mozillastore.com/
firefox store

It just doesn't do it conventionally.

Errr, did I just kill the thread?

Open Source doesn't go against the tenets of capitalism in any way. The central premise of capitalism is that you can do what you want as long as you don't hurt, steal from, or commit fraud against anybody else without their consent. Capitalism is permissive. How does sharing your source code and giving away free stuff in any way contradict "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't involve force or fraud"?

By the way, I'm a capitalist, and I use firefox. Why? It's a good product, and it's very cheap (it costs nothing).

The only way software projects could herald the decline of capitalism would be if the government made a browser and forced everyone to use it. That goes against the principles of capitalism.

As for capitalism collapsing in other ways, I would muse (and hope) that capitalism isn't on the decline, it's only just beginning. People are starting to see that free enterprise really benefits them and others in a big way. If anything is on the decline, I would say it's the systems which impose authoritarian regulations on business and society, systems like communism and authoritarian monarchy.