NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

Cuz we're krazy!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :eek:

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

You see, we live in a capitalist society. I, for instance, have communist ideals, however it is impossible to be a communist when society is predominately capitalist.

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

Probably for the same reason that they own cars, homes, bank accounts, paychecks, and use money: 99.9% of everyone else does. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but simply a matter of survival.

And besides, technically, F/OSS is able to do what it does because its licenses are protected by the force of the capitalist state via intellectual property; the licenses have legal power because the authors' copyright statement protects it. So they'd be continuing to support capitalism/private property even with a 100% F/OSS system (edit: while there might be some truth to the notion that aspects of F/OSS are cooperative/collectivist in nature, the idea that it's inherently anti-capitalist is rather blatant FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt).) (edit again: In fact, I think one could make a strong argument that, due to its highly decentralized and liberal nature, F/OSS represents a form of spontaneous order or emergent behavior far more in line with free market ideology, not "communist.")

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

Uhh, actually I use all freeware except for my OS (Windows) but I plan on transitioning to Linux in the recent future.

After the Revolution, stupid questions will be expropriated and distributed freely to the most irritating.

Probably for the same reason that they own cars, homes, bank accounts, paychecks, and use money: 99.9% of everyone else does. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but simply a matter of survival.

And besides, technically, F/OSS is able to do what it does because its licenses are protected by the force of the capitalist state via intellectual property; the licenses have legal power because the authors' copyright statement protects it. So they'd be continuing to support capitalism/private property even with a 100% F/OSS system.
But would it not be closer to what they are aiming for? If they all suddenly drifted towards FOSS, is it not possible that some of the communities would drift even closer to the persons ideals?

To me it seems like voting Republican, even if the Socialist Party had a chance of winning your riding.

Eh, I don't vote. Part of being a communist, not a person who would rather someone else do it for me.

...Nor do I understand computers and software. Part of being drunk when I should have been paying attention. Ugh. (Also, I'm leaving my computer behind me, soon, and have known it was coming, so haven't put any thought into being more ethical in its operation.)

You see, we live in a capitalist society.
Technically, it's interventionist/mercantilist.

But would it not be closer to what they are aiming for?

Not necessarily, for the reasons I edited in:


(edit: while there might be some truth to the notion that aspects of F/OSS are cooperative/collectivist in nature, the idea that it's inherently anti-capitalist is rather blatant FUD.) (edit again: In fact, I think one could make a strong argument that, due to its highly decentralized and liberal nature, F/OSS represents a form of spontaneous order or emergent behavior far more in line with free market ideology, not "communist.")

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

You assume I paid for it. :)

Technically, it's interventionist/mercantilist.

Thanks to the wealthy, yes.

Not necessarily, for the reasons I edited in:

But that is what allot of the commies here want: a highly individual society where everyone is allowed to benifit from the work of others. Bah, this therad wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.

You assume I paid for it. :)

You did click Agree to the terms of usage. Ever given it a read?

You did click Agree to the terms of usage. Ever given it a read?

Nope. :) (or are you referring to jolt?)

I have a question of my own. If the USA becomes a communist country, will that mean I won't be able to have my own personal airplane anymore?

Nope. :) (or are you referring to jolt?)
Windows. It is particularly nasty in the next version. You are allowed one re-install without buying a new liscence.

(edit: while there might be some truth to the notion that aspects of F/OSS are cooperative/collectivist in nature, the idea that it's inherently anti-capitalist is rather blatant FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt).) (edit again: In fact, I think one could make a strong argument that, due to its highly decentralized and liberal nature, F/OSS represents a form of spontaneous order or emergent behavior far more in line with free market ideology, not "communist.")

Although I would add that trying to make a distinction between "capitalist" and "communist" in a state of non-scarcity, as in "cyberspace" or whatever one wants to call the infinitely reproducable and redistributable 1s and 0s sitting on my hard drive, is essentially futile. Both economic systems, like all economic systems, are ultimately about dealing with scarcity; since no scarcity exists, there's no point. Sure, some insist on creating scarcity via the interference of the state (yet another demonstration of the capitalist's close relationship with said institution...), but such is an artificial invention and not a reflection of actual reality.

I have a question of my own. If the USA becomes a communist country, will that mean I won't be able to have my own personal airplane anymore?
You will be ble to have one, if everyone else who wants one does too.

But that is what allot of the commies here want: a highly individual society where everyone is allowed to benifit from the work of others.


My understanding of "commie" is wishing for collective ownership and control, with the reality of such actually serving to push society away from the F/OSS model. The absense of scarcity in the commodity in question means infinite and unlimited individual possession and control (<--- the point and purpose of F/OSS), which strikes me as the polar opposite of collective ownership and control.

My understanding of "commie" is wishing for collective ownership and control, with the reality of such actually serving to push society away from the F/OSS model. The absense of scarcity in the commodity in question means infinite and unlimited individual possession and control (<--- the point and purpose of F/OSS), which strikes me as the polar opposite of collective ownership and control.
You've argued me into a box.

This is why I only nitpick and point out contradictions.

You did click Agree to the terms of usage. Ever given it a read?

Don't really need to, as the proprietary license can be summed up in one simple line:

"All your base are belong to us."

My understanding of "commie" is wishing for collective ownership and control, with the reality of such actually serving to push society away from the F/OSS model.

Hardly. Collective ownership and control is meant to expand access, not to restrict it.

The absense of scarcity in the commodity in question means infinite and unlimited individual possession and control (<--- the point and purpose of F/OSS), which strikes me as the polar opposite of collective ownership and control.

Much to the contrary, the absence of functional property rights makes it perfectly consistent with the principles of communism.

Don't really need to, as the proprietary license can be summed up in one simple line:

"All your base are belong to us."
Basically.

Windows. It is particularly nasty in the next version. You are allowed one re-install without buying a new liscence.

Well, that's bullshit. So a reformat costs you another few hundred quid? Heh. Apart from that, i'd probably buy Vista if it wouldn't cost me almost as much as my entire computer. And if the 32 bit emulation layer wasn't so crappy that it results in the inability of most of my old software to run at all (unless there is a dramatic improvement from x64, but Microsoft doesn't give a shit in that department, since they aren't making money out of old 32 bit apps.). I initially tried using Linux on this one, but at the time there were compatibility problems with my s/ata hard drive. And as I mainly use this machine for gaming, I have no choice but to submit to Windows. The way I see it, they're not exactly cash strapped, so fuck 'em. I could always switch to Linux and buy an Xbox for games though...oh, wait. :p

I legally own Win 98 and use that on my older machine, though.

You will be ble to have one, if everyone else who wants one does too.

Eh. Whatever, I just want my airplane. lol.

Well, that's bullshit. So a reformat costs you another few hundred quid? Heh. Apart from that, i'd probably buy Vista if it wouldn't cost me almost as much as my entire computer. And if the 32 bit emulation layer wasn't so crappy that it results in the inability of most of my old software to run at all (unless there is a dramatic improvement from x64, but Microsoft doesn't give a shit in that department, since they aren't making money out of old 32 bit apps.). I initially tried using Linux on this one, but at the time there were compatibility problems with my s/ata hard drive. And as I mainly use this machine for gaming, I have no choice but to submit to Windows. The way I see it, they're not exactly cash strapped, so fuck 'em. I could always switch to Linux and buy an Xbox for games though...oh, wait. :p

I legally own Win 98 and use that on my older machine, though.
Yeah, its crap. If there is a mod, he'll make it so that you at least get 30 days to activate. That's what keeps my Windows boots going. I found Vista does a much better job at multiarch than Linux has been doing. But then multiarch is only needed for a few apps as if is pretty easy to port most things to x64. I tried wine for gaming, not much success. Then I tried dual booting. Now I don't really game. Funny how that happened.

Still, it was a remarkable bloated OS. But, why?

I have a question of my own. If the USA becomes a communist country, will that mean I won't be able to have my own personal airplane anymore?

Communist country is an oxymoron, if you mean "true" communism, i.e. a stateless, classless, communal society.

Hardly. Collective ownership and control is meant to expand access, not to restrict it.


That's not really the point (although I would point out that "meant" and "what actually happens" are two different things, even with capitalism); the dicotomy over "capitalism" and "communism" has meaning in the case of a loaf of bread because it is scarce. I can deny access to it. Such is not the case with 1s and 0s, and so there is no need for any kind of economic rationing system. Distribution of software is neither capitalist or communist, or anything.



Much to the contrary, the absence of functional property rights makes it perfectly consistent with the principles of communism.

...and capitalism and every other -ism. The lack of property rights isn't the key; they key is the absense of scarcity. Free (as in speech) distribution of software doesn't fit in either economic model. Trying to cram cyberspace into an -ism doesn't produce a useful or meaningful answer.

0/0 = F/OSS

*snip*

What you are missing is that there is indeed scarcity in software; not in reproduction, but in labor. These programs do not emerge out of nowhere; someone has to program them.

Communist country is an oxymoron, if you mean "true" communism, i.e. a stateless, classless, communal society.

Yeah.

And to answer Wilgrove's question, probably not as personal property, but I imagine as a qualified pilot you would enjoy special privileges pertaining to its use over those of unqualified citizens. If there were significantly more pilots than planes, the community would probably expect you share. That would be up to the jurisdiction of the community, though - It's theoretically possible that in a communist society planes and other vehicles are abundant enough that everyone has one and you would be able to claim it as your personal belonging, much as you'd claim your bed as such. Given the lesser demand of aircraft over cars, however, i'd say it's less likely than the former scenario. Does that answer your question somewhat?

(gotta run, i'll be back later to follow that up)

Not everyone wants the same thing, so communism would have to provide every single alternative, in sufficient quantities for every single person, to be successful.
Capitalism is far more likely to achieve that goal. It never will, but it will get closer.

Why give up stuff you might want, in order to be perverse and rebel against your dad who is in the army. Communism is a stage most teenagers grow out of. The ones who don't are probably just emotionally stunted.

When you were a kid you always wanted to delay your homework until the last day of the holidays, but adults always recommended you did it on the first weekend. People who never see the logic in that grow up communist.

Yeah.

And to answer Wilgrove's question, probably not as personal property, but I imagine as a qualified pilot you would enjoy special privileges pertaining to its use over those of unqualified citizens. If there were significantly more pilots than planes, the community would probably expect you share. That would be up to the jurisdiction of the community, though - It's theoretically possible that in a communist society planes and other vehicles are abundant enough that everyone has one and you would be able to claim it as your personal belonging, much as you'd claim your bed as such. Given the lesser demand of aircraft over cars, however, i'd say it's less likely than the former scenario. Does that answer your question somewhat?

(gotta run, i'll be back later to follow that up)

I don't mind renting aircrafts, in fact I'm dong it right now, but that's because I'm in college. After college I do plan on having my own personal aircraft because with rental, you have to schedule the aircraft, and I dunno, I like the freedom that personal ownership provides. If I had my own aircraft, I could go flying right now if I wanted to.

What you are missing is that there is indeed scarcity in software; not in reproduction, but in labor. These programs do not emerge out of nowhere; someone has to program them.

The scarcity is not an attribute of the software, but of people. It is entirely possible for a person to sell/trade/contribute/whatever their services in maintaining, customizing, expanding or otherwise altering software that is otherwise completely freely redistributable. Every day I use F/OSS software, I run across a feature that I would like to have. Lacking the skills myself, I might be willing to hire an expert to implement it for me. If I'm a business, I might hire a new employee.

Yes, such an individual will only be able to gain compensation once as people will be freely redistributing the result. Guess they'll have to keep innovating and coming up with more a better ideas if they want to continue to be paid, instead of relying on "intellectual property" to extract perpetual rent, for only one instance of labor, via statist coercion. Boo-hoo, says I. :)

(edit: yes, interfacing a domain characterized by the lack of economics with the realm of the tangible is tricky, but it can be done)

Not everyone wants the same thing, so communism would have to provide every single alternative, in sufficient quantities for every single person, to be successful.

There's no reason a communist society could not tie production to demand.

Who wants to make useless things?

When you were a kid you always wanted to delay your homework until the last day of the holidays, but adults always recommended you did it on the first weekend. People who never see the logic in that grow up communist.

What does that have to do with communism?

Not everyone wants the same thing, so communism would have to provide every single alternative, in sufficient quantities for every single person, to be successful.
Capitalism is far more likely to achieve that goal. It never will, but it will get closer.


Quite the contrary; supply and demand means that the capitalist market is only likely to respond to the wants and desires of the majority of consumers, as this stands the greatest potential for profit. Those of us who choose differently from the majority are either out of luck, or get to pay far higher prices in order to justify someone answering the relative lack of demand. Capitalism does not fulfil the desires of every individual, it fulfils the desires of the collective of individuals that can exert the greatest demand. Thus, the criticism you raise actually better characterizes the capitalist market.

There's no reason a communist society could not tie production to demand.

Who wants to make useless things?

It is far less able to switch production swiftly because of the central control over infrastructure. If you refuse to pay workers in currency and insist on rewarding them with goods and services, then those said goods and services take time to implement and fashions change far faster than is possible under those criteria.
You may say fashions and trends are counterproductive, and perhaps they are, but occasionally they offer real cultural and economic benefits like cellular telephones or advances in internal combustion. Communism could never move quick enough to keep up with the capitalist vanguard.


What does that have to do with communism?
It was merely a representation of the kind of idealism modern socialists latch on to. They seem 'cool' at the time, but in hindsight look immature and idealistic.

The scarcity is not an attribute of the software, but of people. It is entirely possible for a person to sell/trade/contribute/whatever their services in maintaining, customizing, expanding or otherwise altering software that is otherwise completely freely redistributable. Every day I use F/OSS software, I run across a feature that I would like to have. Lacking the skills myself, I might be willing to hire an expert to implement it for me. If I'm a business, I might hire a new employee.

Yes, but there is a positive externality involved. You hire the employee - lots of people who did not hire the employee get to be free riders, and benefit from the change while paying nothing.

Because only a small minority of users will actually be paying the experts, the incentive to produce changes will not be proportionate to the value of the changes.

Yes, such an individual will only be able to gain compensation once as people will be freely redistributing the result. Guess they'll have to keep innovating and coming up with more a better ideas if they want to continue to be paid, instead of relying on "intellectual property" to extract perpetual rent, for only one instance of labor, via statist coercion. Boo-hoo, says I. :)

The obvious extended application of this logic would be opposing the private ownership of the means of production.

Quite the contrary; supply and demand means that the capitalist market is only likely to respond to the wants and desires of the majority of consumers, as this stands the greatest potential for profit. Those of us who choose differently from the majority are either out of luck, or get to pay far higher prices in order to justify someone answering the relative lack of demand. Capitalism does not fulfil the desires of every individual, it fulfils the desires of the collective of individuals that can exert the greatest demand. Thus, the criticism you raise actually better characterizes the capitalist market.

So capitalist markets only benefit the mainstream.... someone who likes to be fat and drive a rubbish car is shit out of luck? It hardly seems that way.
But that isn't the point. How could communism ever diversify as quickly to satisfy the whimsical wants of the minority? If you are going to reward people with the labours of others, it would take a huge gamble in terms of infrastructure to set up a manufacture of, lets say green wigs for the sake of the argument. And if green wigs end up being a passing fad, and nobody actually wants them, then you are wasting labour massively.
It would never happen. Prudency would dictate that risks like that were never taken.
In a capitalist realm, silly buggers would set up green wig plants and lose money, but green wig afficionados would still get to be green and nobody would DIE because of it. Unlike your way where if people do something unworthwhile, the slack has to be taken up somewhere, it's not just a few hundred grand that is lost, it's a few hundred lives.

When you were a kid you always wanted to delay your homework until the last day of the holidays, but adults always recommended you did it on the first weekend. People who never see the logic in that grow up communist.

Or become investment bankers. Either one.

It is far less able to switch production swiftly because of the central control over infrastructure.

Questionable assumption no. 1: "central control over infrastructure."

Socialized production does not imply centralized production. (Certainly it does not imply central planning, as you seem to be implying here.)

If you refuse to pay workers in currency and insist on rewarding them with goods and services, then those said goods and services take time to implement

They do in capitalism, too. What's the relevant difference?

and fashions change far faster than is possible under those criteria.

I am not at all convinced that the "fashions" of capitalist society would be at all relevant in one differently structured.

You may say fashions and trends are counterproductive, and perhaps they are, but occasionally they offer real cultural and economic benefits like cellular telephones or advances in internal combustion. Communism could never move quick enough to keep up with the capitalist vanguard.

What do cellphones and internal combustion have to do with fashion?

They do indeed have to do with meeting demand; but democracy ensures that communist institutions would similarly have an incentive to do so.

Or become investment bankers. Either one.

Heh, well the bankers that I grew up with always did the homework on the first weekend without being pressured by their parents. That is unnatural.
But now they are rich so they probably don't care

Yes, but there is a positive externality involved. You hire the employee - lots of people who did not hire the employee get to be free riders, and benefit from the change while paying nothing.

Because only a small minority of users will actually be paying the experts, the incentive to produce changes will not be proportionate to the value of the changes.


I don't claim to have an answer that doesn't result in either ("intellectual") property rights and/or coercing everyone to pay. Again, trying to justify an absense of economic basis with the tangible reality of labor seems to me like trying to divide by zero. The only consistant solution I see is "From each according to his ability" ("To each according to his need" isn't necessary as the absense of scarcity effectively eliminates the concept of "need") which I guess is basically your point.


The obvious extended application of this logic would be opposing the private ownership of the means of production.

Except that, unlike software bits, loaves of bread do not infinitely satisfy hunger without limit. So, no, not quite :)

Heh, well the bankers that I grew up with always did the homework on the first weekend without being pressured by their parents. That is unnatural.
But now they are rich so they probably don't care

Really, in my school, nearly everyone put homework off to the night before. Though I was in the sciences. Humanities could be completely the opposite.

Heh, well the bankers that I grew up with always did the homework on the first weekend without being pressured by their parents. That is unnatural.
But now they are rich so they probably don't care

Well that's true. The retail bankers in the high street tend to be quite the dullbobs. But then they have to be, because if they weren't people probably wouldn't hand over their wage packets to them.

I was really talking more about the Nick Leeson types. He's the type of person who doesn't even do his homework, nevermind putting it off till the last possible moment.

So capitalist markets only benefit the mainstream.... someone who likes to be fat and drive a rubbish car is shit out of luck? It hardly seems that way.


Your claim seemed to be that communism couldn't possibly provide for all possible societal or individual demands. But neither does capitalism. To the extent that the market doesn't give a damn about me as an individual, it suffers the same problem as any other collective system of economics.

The difference between "capitalism" and "communism," at least in theory, however, is the level of centralization. But, as has already been mentioned by Soheran, a communist arangement need not be anymore centralized than a capitalist one (edit: asserting that a USSR-like model is the model of communism would constitute a hasty generalization, strawman, etc.)

Your arguement is about as valid as asking anarchists why the follow laws.

Questionable assumption no. 1: "central control over infrastructure."
Socialized production does not imply centralized production. (Certainly it does not imply central planning, as you seem to be implying here.)

What alternative is there? Communism requires some form of central control over production otherwise everyone would become a wheat farmer or whatever was the easiest job, and wheat would flood the market and nobody would bother to solder silicon or create new encryption algorythms because that is too much like hard work.


They do in capitalism, too. What's the relevant difference?

Capitalism allows for entrepreneurs, so people with ideas can risk some capital on products or services they have with a small chance of a massive gain. Those people who are born at the right time, and have the right ideas, enrich society. Consumers decide which ideas win or lose, and have a far greater choice overall because they have a million grassroots companies which trial on the market, and the genius ones prosper. There is no way communism can use such vast amounts of the workforce on whimsical ideas which could end up bombing seriously.


I am not at all convinced that the "fashions" of capitalist society would be at all relevant in one differently structured.

I am inclined to agree that 'fashion' is frivolous and 90% of the time is counter-productive and benefits only the greedy shit. but...


What do cellphones and internal combustion have to do with fashion?
Well they obviously started out as a 'flavour of the month' dismissed by many as a fad or a trend, but look how they turned out. If we had a centralised politburo to decide where labour was spent, I defy you to conclude that cellphones or petroleum combustion would have ever got off the ground.

They do indeed have to do with meeting demand; but democracy ensures that communist institutions would similarly have an incentive to do so.
democratic socialism amounts to little more than tyrrany by majority.

Really, in my school, nearly everyone put homework off to the night before. Though I was in the sciences. Humanities could be completely the opposite.

The problem with the procrastinator example/metaphor/criticism/whatever put forward in the course of this discussion is that it ignores the existance of people, like myself, who consistantly put off their homework assignments and terms papers till the night before and still get consistantly high grades. :)

democratic socialism amounts to little more than tyrrany by majority.


Just like the market, as it is the collective which decides production, prices, and all other factors. Not the individual.

The problem with the procrastinator example/metaphor/criticism/whatever put forward in the course of this discussion is that it ignores the existance of people, like myself, who consistantly put off their homework assignments and terms papers till the night before and still get consistantly high grades. :)
As do I. And with college, I have time to do it before the class as I have breaks.

I don't claim to have an answer that doesn't result in either ("intellectual") property rights and/or coercing everyone to pay. Again, trying to justify an absense of economic basis with the tangible reality of labor seems to me like trying to divide by zero. The only consistant solution I see is "From each according to his ability" ("To each according to his need" isn't necessary as the absense of scarcity effectively eliminates the concept of "need") which I guess is basically your point.

Well, what I am trying to point out is three things.

1. The issue of intellectual property rights is not as clear-cut as some anti-capitalists (and free-market libertarians) like to think.
2. The proliferation of voluntarily produced and shared software is more meaningful than would be implied by a rejection of (1). What it means is that, at least in certain cases, an essential gift economy can arise quite naturally even in an economy as complex, specialized, and high-tech as ours. As you say, "from each according to her ability."
3. The logic leading to a rejection of intellectual property rights leads quite naturally to more radical critiques of capitalism. This too is the natural consequence of (1).

Except that, unlike software bits, loaves of bread do not infinitely satisfy hunger without limit. So, no, not quite :)

Nor does software, unless infinite time and education are presupposed.

And loaves of bread are not produced by the capitalist; they are produced by the workers. The capitalist gets her profits as a result of past labor, the labor that garnered her the capital necessary for running her business - just like the software programmer who gets her program in intellectual property.

Nick Leeson type

I can't argue with that.

Just like the market, as it is the collective which decides production, prices, and all other factors. Not the individual.

The market is decided by the individual's choices. If nobody buys it, then it bombs. If it is popular, it makes money.

Are you one of these commies? Surely you must see that communism limits individual choice?

The market is decided by the individual's choices. If nobody buys it, then it bombs. If it is popular, it makes money.
If nobody buys, then all the indviduals are just following the will of the group. How again is that individualism?

What alternative is there? Communism requires some form of central control over production otherwise everyone would become a wheat farmer or whatever was the easiest job, and wheat would flood the market and nobody would bother to solder silicon or create new encryption algorythms because that is too much like hard work.

Communism requires some kind of planning.

There no reason that communist societies cannot use market mechanisms to aid in that planning. There is certainly no reason that such planning need be centralized.

Capitalism allows for entrepreneurs, so people with ideas can risk some capital on products or services they have with a small chance of a massive gain. Those people who are born at the right time, and have the right ideas, enrich society. Consumers decide which ideas win or lose, and have a far greater choice overall because they have a million grassroots companies which trial on the market, and the genius ones prosper. There is no way communism can use such vast amounts of the workforce on whimsical ideas which could end up bombing seriously.

Why not? Capitalism does; why can't communism? If the people want economic development, there is no reason that new technologies would not be pursued.

Trial and error is not confined to any one economic system.

Well they obviously started out as a 'flavour of the month' dismissed by many as a fad or a trend, but look how they turned out. If we had a centralised politburo to decide where labour was spent, I defy you to conclude that cellphones or petroleum combustion would have ever got off the ground.

I do not believe in "centralized politburos."

democratic socialism amounts to little more than tyrrany by majority.

I prefer it to tyranny of the rich. (Better would be no tyranny at all - the end result of the radical anarcho-communism I actually prefer to the more moderate one I am advancing at the moment - but that is another discussion.)

The market is decided by the individual's choices. If nobody buys it, then it bombs. If it is popular, it makes money.

And there is absolutely no reason the same could not be true in a communist society.

If nobody buys, then all the indviduals are just following the will of the group. How again is that individualism?

Because the aggregate action of individuals in the case of "democratic socialism" is inherently evil, while the aggregate action of individuals in the case of the "marketplace" is inherently good. Regardless of the fact that both present the same essential aggregation of individuals, and thus both present the same inherent collective behavior, the first is "socialist" and therefore "bad" while the second is "capitalist" and, therefore, inherently "good."

Religions are silly like that.

If nobody buys, then all the indviduals are just following the will of the group. How again is that individualism?

It is individualism because everyone has the choice. Basic dictionary definition.

It is individualism because everyone has the choice. Basic dictionary definition.
So in Communism, you are forced to consume products you do not want?

The market is decided by the individual's choices.


No, the market is controlled by the collective will of the consuming population. My individual demand or choice only makes a difference if enough other people happen to agree with me, thus creating the necessary levels of demand necessary to justify the market's activity.

One has criticized "democratic socialism" for being "tyranny of majority," but the market operates by essentially the same principle.


If nobody buys it, then it bombs. If it is popular, it makes money.


You might not realize it, but you aren't being consistant. In the first sentence, you invoke the "individual," but the "nobody" in the second sentence seems to be in reference to a collective (especially as concerns the concept of "popularity"), the mass of consumers. One should try to be more consistant in the definition of one's terminology ;)


Are you one of these commies?


No, but I do set fire to kittens, eat babies, and push senior citizens out into traffic. Just for fun, too. I'm a bastard.

I prefer it to tyranny of the rich. (Better would be no tyranny at all - the end result of the radical anarcho-communism I actually prefer to the more moderate one I am advancing at the moment - but that is another discussion.)

Yes but in the example I am proffering, the rich acquiesce to the whims of the poor. Look at the example of Nike sneakers which cater for the poorest sections of society and adapt their product range to appeal to whatever you want to call it.... ghetto culture etc. They, rightly or wrongly, offer incentives to people on lower rungs of the social ladder to be productive and rise above their peers.
The new Air Jordans may mean very little to you or I, but they truly are motivation to some people who would otherwise be satisfied with the standard issue patent leather strongshoe that would probably be standard issue in a socialist structure. We assume that everyone wants a strong hardworking shoe and therefore manufacture 300 million pairs in all the relevant sizes.

It limits individual choice, there is no question.

No, but I do set fire to kittens, eat babies, and push senior citizens out into traffic. Just for fun, too. I'm a bastard.

Well at least you are being consistent in your perverse views. I would hate to think that you actually thought any of this crap.

Yes but in the example I am proffering, the rich acquiesce to the whims of the poor. Look at the example of Nike sneakers which cater for the poorest sections of society and adapt their product range to appeal to whatever you want to call it.... ghetto culture etc. They, rightly or wrongly, offer incentives to people on lower rungs of the social ladder to be productive and rise above their peers.
The new Air Jordans may mean very little to you or I, but they truly are motivation to some people who would otherwise be satisfied with the standard issue patent leather strongshoe that would probably be standard issue in a socialist structure.

I see. So they would be fine if they had less, but they are manipulated and pressured into working harder so that they can have something "better" - thanks to the glories of fashion.

This is a good thing?

We assume that everyone wants a strong hardworking shoe and therefore manufacture 300 million pairs in all the relevant sizes.

It limits individual choice, there is no question.

Why would we assume that, if it in fact weren't true?

So in Communism, you are forced to consume products you do not want?

I dont think you would be forced to consume them, but it would either be the SuperRedCommie HDTV or none at all.

I do not believe in "centralized politburos."


But since a single (and, as it happens, the most objectionable) example of something necessarily indicates the characteristics of all possible forms that something can take...you must believe in "centralized politburos."




(fnord)

Well at least you are being consistent in your perverse views. I would hate to think that you actually thought any of this crap.

Other than myself, there isn't a single person on the surface of this planet who knows what I actually think. Plus, I am also constantly in the habit of adopting almost any position simply for the sake or argument. So it isn't really worth worrying about.

So instead, answer the rest of my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11838684&postcount=61) please. :D

1. The issue of intellectual property rights is not as clear-cut as some anti-capitalists (and free-market libertarians) like to think.
2. The proliferation of voluntarily produced and shared software is more meaningful than would be implied by a rejection of (1). What it means is that, at least in certain cases, an essential gift economy can arise quite naturally even in an economy as complex, specialized, and high-tech as ours. As you say, "from each according to her ability."
3. The logic leading to a rejection of intellectual property rights leads quite naturally to more radical critiques of capitalism. This too is the natural consequence of (1).


Of course, of course, and of course. As concerns #3, this doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with said criticisms (or, I might agree with the criticism, but disagree with the proposed solution).



Nor does software, unless infinite time and education are presupposed.

And loaves of bread are not produced by the capitalist; they are produced by the workers. The capitalist gets her profits as a result of past labor, the labor that garnered her the capital necessary for running her business - just like the software programmer who gets her program in intellectual property.


I suppose this is part of the reason for my stated opinions on corporations and such, but I still don't see that communist type solutions are necessary or desirable.

It is far less able to switch production swiftly because of the central control over infrastructure. Ah, I see. Central planning by bureaucrats is bad. Central planning by corporations is good.

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?
Use software? What do you mean, Komrade? In Soviet Russia, software pwns you!

Thanks to the wealthy, yes.
And the government officials--which, of course, is a problem of government.

If you are a communist, and presumably anti-capitalist, why do most of you use propriety software? With the exception of games, nearly everything has a FOSS alternative, so why continue to support Capitalism?

cuz i don't know what propriety software is, or what FOSS is.

Because the aggregate action of individuals in the case of "democratic socialism" is inherently evil, while the aggregate action of individuals in the case of the "marketplace" is inherently good. Regardless of the fact that both present the same essential aggregation of individuals, and thus both present the same inherent collective behavior, the first is "socialist" and therefore "bad" while the second is "capitalist" and, therefore, inherently "good."

Religions are silly like that.
Only if you want to be cheap and superficial about it.